Humanism and Theism

[Moonbeam]

This may be have been discussed here before, I can't remember. Here's my question:

Can humanists be theists or are the two mutually contradictory? I would have said they are but I've met people who disagree. How does being a theist fit into the humanist belief system?

[Alan C.]

I think a theist can have the same ethics, moral code, and empathy as myself, but if they believe in the supernatural (as they must if they are theist) then I can't see how they could be described as humanist.
In my opinion, having no belief in the supernatural is a basic requirement, others may disagree feel free.

[Emma Woolgatherer]

Well, it all depends what you mean by "theist" [---][/---] or rather, if a theist is somebody who believes in a god or gods, it all depends what you mean by "god". If you mean a supreme being, perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, creator and ruler of the universe, whose instructions to humankind are known through scripture and supernatural revelation, then no, such a theist cannot be a humanist, and indeed might be regarded as the very antithesis of a humanist. But if "god" is defined as something natural [---][/---] the entire universe itself, perhaps, or some kind of creative force that sparked off the universe's existence and then had nothing to do with what followed [---][/---] then yes, I'd say such a theist [---][/---] or pantheist, or deist [---][/---] could also be a humanist.

Mind you, I also think there are plenty of theists who claim to believe in a personal god, a fairly conventional Judaeo-Christian one at that, but who live their lives as though they were humanists. They don't refer to the Bible, or to any other kind of religious authority, for moral guidance. Instead they use reason, and evidence, and their own emotions, to decide what is right and what is wrong. They place no trust in revelation, and are deeply sceptical about anything that smacks of the supernatural. In a court of law, for example, they would expect judgments to be made on the basis of scientific evidence, and would reject out of hand claims such as "I know that she's guilty, because God came to me in a dream and told me so", or "It wasn't me who killed him; Beelzebub struck him dead!" That kind of theist will usually acknowledge that atheists can be good people, which is nice, and which also fits with the definition of humanism as "the belief that we can live good lives without religious or superstitious beliefs" (BHA). Unfortunately, they do tend to believe in life after death. But often in a rather vague, wishful, romantic kind of way, rather like the belief that one day they'll be famous, or will find true love. And it doesn't stop them believing that we have a responsibility to make this life a good life.

Anyway, perhaps one can't call them humanists. But maybe "quasi-humanists"?

Emma

[plonkee]

I think most of the humanist manifestos usually have a line about not believing in God.

But I personally would say that humanism is more defined by the idea that we shouldn't rely on the supernatural, and that we should use reason and science to understand things. Also that humans can do good things - especially when we act collectively. I reckon the atheist/theist thing is a red herring. I bet there are plenty of people who are humanist in outlook and action without really every having considered whether they are theist or atheist.

[Occam]

1. I believe Emma said it very well.

2. Only the first Humanist Manifesto included god as a concept. It disappeared from the Second and later versions.

3. When I used to attend Unitarian General Assemblies (before they shifted to being liberal theists), they had a hall with a wide variety of booths. There was always one of them for the Religious Humanists, and another for the Secular Humanists. At the latter booth, I joked that the former booth name was an oxymoron, and they agreed with me. However, I think the Religious Humanists are pretty much straight humanists, but they have a little corner of their mind (cognitive dissonance) that still hangs on to what was driven into them as children about god, along with a plaintive desire for the non-finality of death.

4. Humanists focus on humanity (and all living things), with the goals of respecting and helping rather than hurting, using science and reason to guide our lives, and living joyfully for others as well as ourselves. To that extent any religion is at odds with any of these, a believer in that religion is not completely a humanist.

Occam

[Maria Mac]

When I worked at the BHA, we had an applicant to do the celebrants training who was a practising Catholic. Indeed, she was very involved in the Church to the extent of being an advocate in the Church court (or whatever it's called) on behalf of couples who want to have their marriages annulled.

I told her that her that we only took on secular humanists and her involvement in the church was a conflict of interest. She was very, very upset and insisted that she was a humanist. I didn't have time to get into a prolonged discussion with her about it though I have often regretted not doing so as I am curious to this day as to how an active Catholic can reconcile their beliefs and support for their Church with humanism.

Anyway, a pertinent article from an Indian Humanist appears on the IHS website here. It makes pretty much the same point as has been made on this thread already.

In other words, the humanist movement rejects the God of the moralists while ignoring the God of the philosophers as having no relevance to the conduct of human affairs.

The so-called "strong atheist" movement proposes, "I do not know, or care, what your concept of God is, I hold it to be false." This smacks of a dogmatism quite alien to the humanist ethos. It can perhaps best be described as aggressive atheism.

Pragmatic humanism is concerned with only those beliefs and attitudes which have a bearing on the conduct of human affairs. Belief in the existence of an anthropomorphic God who rewards and punishes, and responds to prayers, strikes at the very roots of the humanist worldview, which is based on the autonomous nature of morality.

The God of Spinoza, Whitehead or Einstein is of no interest to humanists. A total rejection of all concepts of God advocated so fervently by the New Atheists is not only logically untenable, but also unnecessary -- and essentially counterproductive -- from the humanist point of view.

Perhaps what we need is a return to the large and tolerant vision of the founders of the humanist movement.

(My bold). I think I have as much trouble accepting some of the fanatical and aggressive atheists who've posted on this forum as humanists as I do accepting the Catholic woman.

[Dan]

The difficulty only arises because secular humanists do not own the word "humanism". The *organised* humanist movement in this country is non-theistic.

But you can also look back at figures who secular humanists respect. Take Thomas Paine. As a deist, he believed in a God, indeed attacked atheists. Yet he is widely referred to in humanist literature. Would we regard him as a humanist? What about Voltaire? Perhaps we can regard them as proto-humanists, or inspirers of the humanist tradition, while not being humanists in the modern sense.

Dan

[Occam]

Maria, it's unfortunate that you couldn't have spent more time talking with the woman who was a Catholic and wanted to become a celebrant. It might have been worthwhile to let her go through the training. She may have been able to discard or at least minimize her Christian beliefs.

Occam

[jaywhat]

Another point is that the person who has done the training can then (after their probation) take ceremonies in the name of the BHA (sort of) and here conflict may well arise. We rejected a bloke once after he had done the training because he had hidden various 'beliefs' from the organisation, including his involvement with reiki etc.