Keywords

In my years working for the Humanist Institute, I have come to realize how unappreciated formal humanist education is for humanists. How so many dismiss the value of being a thoroughly educated, articulate person in the life-stance they propose to passionately believe in. This phenomenon has continued to amaze me as devout humanists profess their commitment to humanist values and principles without truly comprehending the life-stance in depth. On more than one occasion, I have had people proclaim that they fully understand what humanism is based on reading a handful of books. They truly believe that they need no further education. I almost always discover these individuals are well versed in what particularly intrigues them about humanism—as they selected books of personal interest from an Internet bloggers list of the “5 Essential Books on Humanism.” However, they lack a comprehensive knowledge of all aspects of humanism and often remain inarticulate about those areas that did not catch their attention. Why would one need to extensively study human nature, moral development, or ethics to be a humanist? After all, isn’t reading Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion or Greg Epstein’s Good Without God sufficient? It now comes as no surprise when I hear a Secular Humanist struggle to define what Religious Humanism is or to discover a Religious Humanist who believes that Secular Humanism is redundant in nature.

The fact that the majority of Humanists rely solely on self-education is astonishing, but what is truly shocking is the number of humanist leaders who adamantly reject structured humanist education for themselves, those employed by them, or others associated with their organizations. Leaders of various humanist organizations have told me outright they did not see any logic behind engaging other individuals or encouraging them to enroll in Humanist Institute courses. The reason? Because they think that the “rigorously academic courses” that the Institute offers will not lead to tangible outcomes, such as employment. Personally, I don’t know any educational institution that guarantees employment, but I am aware of many that will prepare individuals for the workforce by providing the necessary knowledge and skills. I also know that continuing education opens doors to new opportunities within existing employment. And I am certainly aware of the vast array of religious organizations in our country that actively promote the importance of community members receiving a thorough education in their faith-based ideals. So why wouldn’t humanist leaders want to gain proficiency in their chosen career, encourage their workforce to be coherent advocates, or desire others to be informed humanists?

I really do not know the answer to the above. But what is clear to me is that embracing and pursuing a formal system of learning is essential in making humanism a viable alternative to traditional religious life where extensive formal education in their belief systems is the norm. It is necessary not only to continue cultivating knowledgeable leaders but also to provide a substantial collaborative community. A community that is informed and fully capable of meeting the needs of nonbelievers as they face life’s joys, sorrows, and challenges. A community standing up and representing our like-minded beliefs to ensure what we value is upheld in our neighborhoods, cities, states, country, and world. A community supporting an ethical worldview that respects every individual’s worth promotes a more humane society and strives for global responsibility.

Where We Are Today

At present, there are but a few humanist leaders who are required to have formal education in order to fulfill professional obligations. Most of these leaders exist within congregational life where their role is to provide guidance to the community through various programs and services. The very nature of their position makes it imperative that they fully comprehend humanism—as congregants rely on their leadership to examine and support aspects of life from a humanist perspective. As noted by the Unitarian Universalist Association, “Ministers are spiritual leaders of our faith communities. They help us explore life’s questions, challenge us to live out our values, and comfort us in times of suffering. Ministers teach, preach, listen and learn by leading congregations, serving as chaplains, and working for justice in the community” (2017 Ministers).

Like Unitarian Universalist ministers, Ethical Culture leaders carry responsibilities as clergy of the Ethical Culture Movement. The American Ethical Union indicates that their national leaders “… serve Ethical Societies and the broader community, providing pastoral support, inspiration, and a grounding in our deepest values. Leaders bring the ideals of Ethical Culture to the wider community through their work on social justice initiatives and in collaboration with organizations that share our priorities” (2017 National Leaders Council).

In addition, Secular Humanist rabbis “…are spiritual leaders and philosophic and cultural mentors for Secular Humanistic Jews. They serve as teachers, counselors, pastors, ceremonialists (celebration and ceremonial guides), and experts in Judaism” (International Institute for Secular Humanistic Judaism). The obligations of Unitarian Universalist ministers, Ethical Culture leaders, or Secular Humanist rabbis demand that they are knowledgeable enough to meet these duties and responsibilities. Just as you would expect a teacher to be well informed on the subject they are teaching, a congregational community depends on its leader’s experience and insight to represent and distinguish a humanist worldview. Thus, for congregational leaders, education is not only a necessary qualification for performing the job, but a key component in engaging and directing community.

While congregations are receiving the benefits of well-educated leaders, the reality is, only a minority of humanists are involved in a congregation. Most humanists do not have access to a congregational community that would fully support their life-stance. There are only 23 Ethical Culture Societies across the United States, and 8 of them exist in the state of New York. There are no Ethical Culture Societies in the western region of the country and a limited number available in the Midwest (2017 Member Societies). If you celebrate a culturally Jewish identity but maintain a humanist life-stance, there are 27 Secular Humanistic Jewish communities throughout the United States (2017 Find a Community). Similar to Ethical Culture Societies, Secular Humanistic Jewish communities are concentrated in specific, primarily urban, areas. Some humanists do find a home within Unitarian Universalists congregations (1098 in the United States), but there are a limited number specifically dedicated to humanism. In an effort to be inclusive, Unitarian Universalist congregations predominantly promote an openness that embraces a diversity of beliefs. As the Unitarian Universalist Association notes, “We are brave, curious, and compassionate thinkers and doers. We are diverse in faith, ethnicity, history and spirituality, but aligned in our desire to make a difference for the good … We are Unitarian Universalists and Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Humanist, Jewish, Muslim, Pagan, atheist and agnostic, believers in God, and more” (2017 Our UU Faith). The “being all things to all people” Unitarian Universalist approach is often unsatisfying for a humanist who desires a like-minded community devoid of any religious trappings. So while there may be more options in attending a Unitarian Universalist congregation, those congregations are less likely to satisfactorily meet the needs of humanists. Thus, a limited number of humanists have the opportunity to be guided by a leader who can authentically inspire, teach, and support humanist values and principles from a thoroughly grounded standpoint.

The vast majority of humanists building and supporting community are simply dedicated, self-educated, volunteers. While within the last 35 years the number of paid positions outside of congregational life have grown from a mere handful to well over 60, there are still a large number of individuals unpaid for their work within the humanist movement. Whether or not these individuals are paid or volunteer is of little importance for the matter at issue. What is critical to this discussion is self-education and the absence of established qualifications. That individuals who are forming and directing groups, managing or working within organizations, officiating life celebrations, and/or providing pastoral care are relying predominately on self-education as sufficient to represent humanism. There is truly no demand, no requirement, or no expectation from the larger community that these leaders acquire anything more. While self-education does have its advantages under specific circumstances, it still does not measure up to a formal education. In his Internet blog on Why Self-Educated Learners Often Come Up Short, Scott H. Young writes:

In my experience, self-education tends to be very good at high-level ideas.

If you want to spend a few months understanding evolutionary biology, you could probably read about a dozen books on the topic. These books would give you the broad strokes of what’s going on in the field, the challenges being faced and what science currently understands.

But I’ve noticed that the typical approach to self-education tends to be lousy at the deep, detailed knowledge of a field. Reading those evolutionary biology books won’t give you the statistical methods for analyzing gene selection, or the functions for how a population evolves over time. ( Young 2010)

It takes an immense amount of determination and motivation to acquire the same level of learning through self-education as one would gain within a structured class setting. And even if an individual managed to muster up the necessary dedication, tackling a field of study on your own may still fall short without a solid curriculum to follow, instructor to encourage, or fellow students to look toward as critical resources during the learning process.

How do you know what to sequentially study in order to build upon previous knowledge? Who provides feedback when you do not completely understand a concept? Where is your study group that will help add to your learning? These shortfalls of self-education become very apparent when one closely examines the current humanist community. There is a whole host of leaders who, as Young puts it, have a “broad stroke” understanding of humanism but lack the necessary “deep, detailed knowledge” about Humanism which is essential to cultivating a vibrant, compelling, and harmonious community.

Ultimately, what we face today is a fragmented, uninformed community mainly defined and driven by those individuals who interpret humanism from their own bias or angle. They piece together self-acquired knowledge and arrive at unchallenged and unquestioned conclusions about humanism. Then they convey these points of view to the larger community. The outcome is a muddled conglomeration of what is and is not humanism across the movement. As Joseph Hoffman indicates in his article “The Problem with Humanism,” “Contemporary humanism is a mess because it doesn’t know what it believes, so much so that it doesn’t know what ‘it’ stands for. Humanism has become a garbled message of freedom, science, democratic values and church-state separation spread out over a playing field with no ball and no rules” (Hoffman 2010). While Hoffman’s goal is to claim a truly progressive humanism that is not found in definitions, statements, or manifestos, he does highlight the importance of being informed by learning. Taking it a step further than Hoffman, I would argue that it is not only imperative to be informed by learning, but the movement must establish standards and expectations for our workforce. We must require that individuals representing the movement have some formal education. For this is the best chance humanism has for becoming a cohesive, effective movement and an actual choice for the religiously unaffiliated as well as others who may share common values and beliefs.

We Have No Doctrine

The Humanist life-stance or worldview is a philosophy with no clear dogma or doctrines to follow. There is common ground with lots of room for interpretation. All one has to do is Google “humanism,” and you will find a myriad of definitions within which, if crossed referenced, one discovers similarities, differences, and slight twists. For instance, the American Humanist Association (AHA) defines humanism as “… a progressive life stance that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead meaningful, ethical lives capable of adding to the greater good of humanity” (2017 Definition of Humanism). The Bristol Humanist Group notes, “Humanism is an approach to life based on reason and our common humanity, recognizing that moral values are properly founded on human nature and experience alone” (2017 Definition of Humanism). Which is the correct definition? Or do they both have it right?

While humanists cannot exactly agree on a single definition, we do have some prevailing beliefs that get expressed across definitions. Humanism affirms science, reason, ethics, morality, democracy, naturalism, global responsibility, and the dignity of human life. These terms are scattered among the various characterizations of humanism. And they are gathered together in a presumably cohesive whole within Manifesto III, under the ownership of the American Humanist Association. As indicated in Manifesto III, “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” (2017 Humanism and Its Aspirations). It is our public declaration of our aspirations and what we hold as truth. The common ground that weaves us together like a tapestry of ideals. However, not all humanists confirm the Manifesto III as the predominant expression of humanist philosophy, life-stance, or worldview—as the Council for Secular Humanism adheres to the Secular Humanist Declaration. The Secular Humanist Declaration, like Manifesto III, attempts to incorporate key words and ideals into explanatory paragraphs, taking a firm stance on “this” is what Humanists believe. While Manifesto III is a list of proclamations, the Secular Humanist Declaration takes a stance on defending democracy against the “varieties of belief that seek supernatural sanction for their values or espouse rule by dictatorship” (2017 A Secular Declaration). Where Manifesto III refers to “life’s fulfillment” and humans as social beings, the Secular Humanist Declaration speaks against “cults of unreason” and humans having the ability to “solve their own problems with intelligence and perseverance.” Each document interweaves the buzzwords of humanism, maintaining their unique emphasis on what they hold as the basics of humanism.

Unlike the American Humanist Association, the Council for Secular Humanism goes one step beyond their declaration in having drafted a statement of principles or “Affirmations of Humanism” that outline 21 bullet points of beliefs, commitments, understandings, desires, intents, and motivation. Curiously, these were written by the founder of the Council for Secular Humanism and the Center for Inquiry, Paul Kurtz, who upon resigning from the Center of Inquiry drafted “The Neo-Humanist Statement of Secular Principles and Values” under his newly established entity, the Institute for Science and Human Values. Once again both statements tried to be definitive expressions of what Humanism is, represents, and needs to be.

There is one more document that claims to be “the official defining statement of World Humanism” (2017 The Amsterdam Declaration), the Amsterdam Declaration of 2002. Similar to the other documents mentioned, this statement also seeks to establish what are the fundamental principles of humanism. Originally written in 1952, the Amsterdam Declaration was signed by humanist organizations across the world, including the American Humanist Association and the Council for Secular Humanism. And for most of the signing organizations, this declaration is sufficient in outlining humanism. Only the American Humanist Association and the Council for Secular Humanism have created additional statements as mentioned above.

All these competing attempts to define and establish the basis of humanism are reminiscent of the perils and plights of Unitarian Universalism following the merger of 1961. Two distinct, but not entirely incompatible, denominations struggling to find common ground that would enable them to be a strong united voice within the community. Both groups, similar to humanists, had no creed or dogma. And each came to the table representing similar ideals, but emphasizing quite different sentiments. Marilyn Sewell states in her article “Why Unitarians and Universalists Belong Together: A Fifty-Year Recollection” that:

… the two groups had much in common. Most significantly, each was a free faith, with no creed, and both had a strong policy of congregational autonomy. They were compatible theologically, though each brought a different emphasis. The Unitarians brought the concept of “one God” rather than the Trinitarian God of conventional Christian churches. Too liberal for both Calvin and Luther, they had come out of the left wing of the Protestant Reformation, and were adamant that each person must be free to follow the dictates of conscience. The Universalists, who believed in the doctrine of universal salvation, were widely known for their tolerance and generosity of spirit. Both groups allowed the umbrella of their religion to encompass an increasingly diverse range of beliefs, including atheists, agnostics, humanists, Jews, as well as Christians. (Sewell 2011)

Despite commonalities and a willingness to join together, Unitarian Universalism suffered an identity crisis, not unlike what is occurring within humanism. Without a clear doctrine as guide or a specific creed to follow, the Unitarian Universalists found themselves lost in what they stood for as opposed to understanding what they believed in. Reviewing the history of Unitarian Universalism in his article “Why ‘Unitarian Universalism’ Is Dying,” David Loehr indicates that during the 1960s and 1970s political liberalism was driving American culture and having a great impact upon many religious entities. The spirit and language of religion became more political than theological. He notes, “So it’s not a coincidence that in the late 1970s, Unitarians were heard to complain that ‘Our kids don’t know what to tell their classmates they believe.’” Unitarian Universalist beliefs have become less about “what is worth believing?” and more about “for whom and what do we advocate”—gay rights, civil rights, feminism (Loehr 2005). This identity crisis did not lead to a more thoughtful and educated exploration of their religious beliefs grounded in history, but resulted in a political approach of polling congregations to find out exactly why people were attending Unitarian Universalist congregations in the first place. The process did eventually bring about the establishment of the Seven Principles as a guide to what Unitarian Universalist communities aspire to. And these principles continue today as the bonds that unify a diverse and inclusive religious tradition.

But this obviously is not the answer for Humanism—as none of the drafted documents became the glue that would hold us all together. We remain, as Joseph Hoffman indicated, a mess of garbled messages. Entangled in a sort of ping-pong match volleying across the net to essentially capture and define the conclusive statement and/or put together the final words on what humanism is and stands for. As Anthony Pinn states in his chapter “Humanism as a Guide to Life Meaning,” “The situation is messy, but efforts to define evolving realities always are. There are just too many ‘moving parts,’ too many nuances and ideological shifts for the situation to be otherwise” (Pinn 2016, p. 32). While I think the dynamic nature of a progressing humanism makes it difficult to pin things down in an exact manner, it does not negate the importance of working toward organizing around our commonalities versus continuing to battle over our differing opinions.

So how then do we become a collaborative, cohesive, and collective community led by informed individuals promoting and nurturing our point of view when we cannot even agree upon what that particularly is? Why is creating a larger community even important? Can we not continue to exist in our own defined entities?

Importance of Working Together in Community

There is immense power when a group of people with similar interests gets together to work toward the same goals. (Idowu Koyenikan)

We may be a jumbled disarray of definitions, terms, statements, proclamations, and documents; however, it is not necessary that we continue chasing our tails. For far too long, contemporary humanism has been a cult of personalities, driven by leaders who strive to be the “all-powerful, all-knowing” fathers of humanism (2017 Stalin’s Cult of Personality). Do not get me wrong; I am thankful to all those forefathers of humanism who attempted to proclaim loudly who we are to all our adversaries, such as the Religious Right. However, ultimately this has led us to this, sometimes unpleasant, tug of war among ourselves versus standing up against those who oppose us. We have become embroiled in a struggle over not only basic meaning, but also locked in debate on even the simplistic items such as whether or not to use a capital or lower case “H” to distinguish Humanism. We find ourselves gridlocked over semantics battling across like-minded organizations, which has only kept us from being effective within and outside our communities. As Atheist blogger Neil Carter wrote in his online article “It’s Past Time for Atheism to Grow Up,” “within my own chosen virtual community I’ve witnessed a great deal of division and ideological warring marked by power struggles, more group infighting, and whole host of people with tiny kingdoms to protect” (Dixie 2016). We are running around in circles of explanations without spending any time finding out where we intersect. We are concentrating too much on our own reflections, remaining fixated on the goal to be THE Humanist organization with that unifying manifesto or declaration, or, at minimum, the final word. It’s time we stop contemplating our image in a mirror and join together on common ground. As it is in community that we will grow, expand, and develop into an effective movement.

Being in community is essential to the human spirit. Community is where we find comfort, a sense of belonging, nurturing, and advancement. Community can be powerful in bringing people together to create lasting change. Community can also be a safe haven shielding us from the challenges of new experiences and making us blind to other viewpoints. As Sarah Michelson, Teen Intern with The Food Project and Community Builder, said, “there is something potentially dangerous about communities. A community that is safe, comfortable, and trusting can be so enticing that individuals can forget about the world outside of their community, or regard other communities with subtle prejudices” (Michelson 2017). It is important that we resist the temptation to coexist, agree to disagree, or simply disagree. This keeps us immersed in our particular preconceptions of Humanism and its aspirations as opposed to assembling together as a collective, more powerful voice. Just imagine what we could accomplish if we risked putting away our exhaustive agendas for a more inclusive humanism. Frances Moore Lappe, author of You Have the Power: Choosing Courage in a Culture of Fear and Democracy’s Edge, said, “Appreciating that community is essential to human well being calls us to a particular kind of courage: walking with our fear of exclusion in order to stand up for inclusion” (Moore Lappe 2017). So, we may have to let go of our beloved manifestos, declarations, and desire to have “the last word” in order to achieve a higher purpose—making humanism a widely accepted and respected life-stance.

To remain separate entities only dilutes our potential strength and ability to act in community. We can only get so far if we continue to draw lines around our moats, denoting that our kingdom rules the roost. It tends to provoke attack or, worse, cultivates a new competitive realm that doesn’t add the richness of diversity, but only serves to further alienate us from one another. It is far easier for our conservative religious foes to dismiss us when we tend to attack each other or are in relentless pursuit of our own successes. This is most evident at the atheist end of our life-stance spectrum. The Atheist Revolution blogger Jack Vance, in “How to Stop the Atheist Infighting,” remarks:

What if all the online infighting we see taking place among atheists was not merely a harmless oddity or the sort of minor distraction that did not have any real consequences? What if it was seriously undermining our ability to pursue many of our shared goals and making it more likely that religious privilege would persist?

If this possibility seems far-fetched, consider that “divide and conquer” is a common and effective strategy for weakening one’s opponents. If you were a Christian extremist who wanted to make sure those pesky atheists would never accomplish anything, you’d almost certainly be delighted by our infighting and all-around pettiness. When we are at each other’s throats, we’re making little progress at ending your Christian privilege.

If there aren’t plenty of other reasons that might persuade you to stop attacking other atheists online, consider a pragmatic one: it prevents us from effectively challenging the religious majority and advancing our common goals. Instead of continuing to emphasize our disagreements, we could embrace our many agreements and work together to bring about some real change. (Vance 2017)

I could not agree more that it is time we assemble around our commonalities while respecting our differences. Building a community firm in its shared convictions and enduring in its capacity to advance agreed-upon ideals. To do this, we must start with education. For it is in formally educating ourselves we can move beyond our foregone conclusions and various interpretations to form a comprehensive harmonious Humanism that is focused on our common heritage and desires for the future.

Education as Foundation

Education is the foundation upon which we build our future. (Christine Gregoire)

When the Humanist Institute was conceptualized, its primary goal was to educate leaders. It was Sherwin Wine, founder of the Society for Humanistic Judaism, who in 1982 proposed establishing a Humanist school in North American to train leaders. As he indicated, “The greatest need for Humanism today is the presence of well-trained leaders who will be able to mobilize people to embrace our philosophy of life” (Wintermute 2017), for in the early 1980s, there was neither a professional designation nor a way to train Humanist leaders. As the late Carol Wintermute indicated in her history of The Humanist Institute:

While many Unitarian ministers had become humanist leaders, and the Ethical movement had created a program to train their own community guides, there was no strong sense of a professionally designated “humanist leader.” There was professional collegiality that crossed boundaries of historic groups. Unitarian humanist ministers in particular spent a significant amount of time connecting to non-humanists in their denomination and very little time connecting with leaders outside their movement who shared their conviction. The same was true for humanistic Jews. (Wintermute 2017)

The Institute became the way professional Humanist leaders were trained. For over 35 years, its adjunct faculty trained over 100 Humanist leaders serving in various capacities within the movement. Leaders who were and are informed advocates for Humanism motivating individuals to embrace our life-stance.

But the Institute has done much more than just train leaders. What the founders could not have foreseen was the impact of affiliating with other current and emerging leaders. For the first time, religious humanists, secular humanists, freethinkers, atheists, and agnostics came together in a learning environment to discuss humanism. Individuals who had been completely unaware of the existence of other groups were sitting across the table discussing and discovering each other’s history and approaches to Humanism. And in this discourse, Humanism became much more than just that particular person’s familiar orientation. As the late founding Dean of the Institute, Howard Radest, said in his book Devil and Secular Humanism:

Above all, I have benefited from the work of my students and fellow instructors in The Humanist Institute. Together, we have begun the fascinating task of uniting for the sake of the education of Humanist leadership. In our seminars and in our faculty colloquia over the past seven years we have set out to rethink Humanism. (Radest 1990, p. x)

For the Institute participants, Humanism becomes a dynamic, robust, and evolving philosophy with many different angles and places of intersection. I have witnessed the students’ delight in the diversity of thought, for it pushed them to reconsider what they believed to be truths. And I have seen them relish the common ground where they can take a rest from argument and further contemplation. The experience is life changing. It transforms people as they come together for the purpose of learning and leave having grown to be more fully human. As a graduate of the Institute so eloquently expressed upon completing the Institute’s certificate program:

I came to The Humanist Institute to learn about Humanism, but I got so much more. Words cannot express the gratitude I have for HI. It has been the most powerful, rewarding experience that I have ever had. Each class added layers of understanding and knowledge that has helped make me the person I am today. A person more committed to helping others, more compassionate about life and living life now the very best that I can, more dedicated to sharing with others what living life as a humanist is all about what it means to me, and how these changes have influenced me in regards to how I look at my life, life in general, and this planet I share with other people of this world. (Cardwell 2015)

It is this type of structured and encouraging educational environment that can fundamentally alter the humanist movement from a fragmented and disorganized assortment of definitions and statements toward a corporative, unified group working together to rethink a more inclusive humanism. Partaking in Humanist education needs to be a broadly accepted and expected factor for our community. Not just for those congregational humanists who are required to receive a thorough education as an overall job requirement, but also for individuals forming and directing groups, managing or working within organizations, officiating life celebrations, and/or providing pastoral care. Relying on self-education is not sufficient to understand humanism in depth, nor does it create a vital, cohesive community of nurturing members, representing our beliefs, and standing up for what we value. Acquiring the necessary education is critical for humanism’s future.