Humanist Manifesto II

I don't remember when I signed the second Humanist Manifesto (as a tertiary signatory). Perhaps it was in 1997, or 1998. At the time, I was involved with the American Humanist Association, the Humanists of Utah, and later local Unitarianism. I was leaving, and later formally left, Mormonism, and the support I got from the Unitarians in my leaving was important to my spiritual growth. From them I learned the importance of sceptical and critical thinking, especially as applied to religious matters. After forming and running the Intelligent Inquiry Educational Society, however, it became clear to me that inquiry was not about conclusions, but about openness to possibilities. Though the humanists proclaimed openness, they were closed to the idea of the supernatural, to the idea of deity. I have changed my mind about some of the more rigid conclusions of Humanist Manifesto II, and because of the nature of signing a document such as the manifesto, it is important to indicate changes of opinion so as not to mislead, or be misunderstood.

In general, the first manifesto was a repudiation of theism, and attempted to focus on mutual living. The second manifesto attempted to clarify this mutual living in the face of the brutalities of the world wars. The striking down of theism, however, not only misunderstands the superstitions of our past, but prematurely draws conclusions about our present and future superstitions. Just as surrenduring to ignorance and calling it God is premature (Isaac Asimov), so is surrenduring to ignorance and denying God. The atheist may live without God, legitimately argue against the illogic of God, the inconsistency of God's (or the gods) existence, or suggest the irrelevance of God (as I once did), but the concept of God continues to be a prevalent force in society, and the possibility—the probability appears inconclusive—remains of the existence of a creative force that is transcendent, and perhaps immanent, to ourselves.

Specifically, my objections are as follows:

...humanists still believe that traditional theism, especially faith in the prayer-hearing God, assumed to live and care for persons, to hear and understand their prayers, and to be able to do something about them, is an unproved and outmoded faith. Salvationism, based on mere affirmation, still appears as harmful, diverting people with false hopes of heaven hereafter. Reasonable minds look to other means for survival....

If an almighty, ultimate power created the universe we live in—presuming such an uncreate exists—why would it be that said power could not hear prayers? Why would such a being create if said being did not care for its creation? Such a faith would only be outmoded if proved otherwise, not if simply left unproved. But, the sceptic will inevitably argue that the burden of proof is on the claimant. However, the theist's claim is not a legal claim, but a profession of hope grounded in reasonable possibility, if not probability. Faith is a principle of trust and relationship within that hope. If the hope is disproved, or shown to be unreasonable, or simply without reinforcement of relationship, then we can claim said hope is outmoded.

The theist can both be reasonable in looking to other means for survival in this natural world, and at the same time hoping for the provision of daily bread by the unseen God.

Traditional moral codes...fail to meet the pressing needs of today and tomorrow. False theologies of hope and messianic ideologies, substituting new dogmas for old, cannot cope with existing world realities. They separate rather than unite peoples.

This next part of the manifesto seems a meaningless statement of rhetoric, over generalized and unspecific, as well as somewhat contradictory to a statement earlier that We appreciate the need to preserve the best ethical teachings in the religious traditions of humankind, many of which we share in common.:

Any account of nature should pass the tests of scientific evidence; in our judgment, the dogmas and myths of traditional religions do not do so.

We find insufficient evidence for belief in the existence of a supernatural; it is either meaningless or irrelevant to the question of survival and fulfillment of the human race. As nontheists, we begin with humans not God, nature not deity.

This seems to misapply science to religion, after stating that it should apply to accounts of nature. The dogmas and myths of traditional religions should not be kept from scientific inquiry, where those myths are relevant to natural process. Unfortunately, myths would not be myths if science was able to investigate them. Science does not disprove a myth when it cannot investigate it, but merely labels it an unknown, or a mystery. Hopes or belief in myths does not require science to be reasonable or rational. The following quote is another example of this. The statement of a non-theistic position shows the same pattern of belief as theism; I don't necessarily disagree with it, but wish to also consider God's existence amongst my doubts, as well as that same God's non-existence.

As for evidence for the supernatural, this is a matter of logic, and of expression of genuine spiritual experience and aspiration. I personally have difficulty with much of polytheistic religion, spiritual charletains, or forecasting tricks, but though I can show certain types of supernaturalism are based on outmoded, contradicted, or dishonest thinking and claims (i.e. astrology, Mormonism), I am unable to show that there is not something independent of the natural universe that is capable of influencing nature. Thus, there is the possibility of the supernatural. As a human being, I must start with human beings and nature as I learn, but that does not preclude or exclude deity, or other supernatural.

Some humanists believe we should reinterpret traditional religions and reinvest them with meanings appropriate to the current situation. Such redefinitions, however, often perpetuate old dependencies and escapisms; they easily become obscurantist, impeding the free use of the intellect. We need, instead, radically new human purposes and goals....

As we learn new things, investing old knowledge with new meaning is a matter of wisdom and growth. The radical rejection of all knowledge, because of the misunderstanding of some, is foolish. Scepticism should not mean cynicism.

Traditional religions often offer solace to humans, but, as often, they inhibit humans from helping themselves or experiencing their full potentialities. Such institutions, creeds, and rituals often impede the will to serve others. Too often traditional faiths encourage dependence rather than independence, obedience rather than affirmation, fear rather than courage. More recently they have generated concerned social action, with many signs of relevance appearing in the wake of the God Is Dead theologies. But we can discover no divine purpose or providence for the human species. While there is much that we do not know, humans are responsible for what we are or will become. No deity will save us; we must save ourselves....

As the cliche goes, God helps those who help themselves. Without disagreeing with the above, there are two sides of the same coin. Religion can indeed inhibit humans from helping themselves, but just as often it helps humans help themselves.

More relevant is a comment from Carl Sagan's Demon Haunted World: This is one of the reasons that the organized religions do not inspire me with confidence. Which leaders of the major faiths acknowledge that their beliefs might be incomplete or errorneous and establish institutes to uncover possible doctrinal deficiences? Beyond the test of everyday living, who is systematically testing the circumstances in which traditional religious teachings may no longer apply?

Promises of immortal salvation or fear of eternal damnation are both illusory and harmful. They distract humans from present concerns, from self-actualization, and from rectifying social injustices. Modern science discredits such historic concepts as the ghost in the machine and the separable soul.

Though I agree with this statement in general, I do not think that this is always the case. We really know very little about immortal salvation and eternal damnation. I agree that fear is harmful, but is immortality truly an illusion? Possibly, but not necessarily. Ultimately, these concepts are harmful when they distract us from helping each other, from rectifying social injustices, or from caring for our planet. However, these concepts also encourage us to self-actualization, and...rectifying social injustices.

Finally, the HMII's mention of Marxism, birth control, abortion, divorce, euthanasia, and suicide with unreserved acceptance is in hindsight troubling.

Marxism has suggested some humanistic and dignifying solutions to human problems, but its association with Lenin and Stalin, the supression of religion, and the murder of perhaps more human beings than at any time in human history, have put a black stain on the validity of its suggestions. Perhaps it might be better to refer to socalism in general, and leave Marxism to a failed ideology, the extension of a sometimes hypocritical, sometimes dishonest, man.

Birth control, abortion, divorce, euthanasia, and suicide, all of which are controversial subjects, become their own form of ideology or dogma when promoted without reservation. Perhaps, birth control should be considered a right, but like the rest it seems more clearly a part of medical science and psychology. If anything, the right should be that of a doctor to prescribe a necessary solution to a medical problem, and the right of a patient to accept it under whatever health system is in place. A woman should be able to chose whether or not she wishes to have children, and should have the power to carry out that decision either way.

Divorce is not a right, but a matter of legal union. However, marriage should never be a means of control, but of mutual self giving. The details of the breaking of a partnership should always take into account each circumstance, and the freedom and autonomy of each individual.

Abortion, euthanasia, and suicide should not be legal rights. Abortion is a medical procedure, sometimes necessary, that ends premature life. Abortion should be taken more seriously than it is, never to be used as a form of birth control. If giving birth to a child becomes a medical problem, then abortion should be seen as a possible medical procedure. Parental planning and education regarding sex, birth control, and child birth should be given precendence to irresponsibility and ignorance. As for euthanasia and suicide, this is more difficult. Killing one's self is often an act of irresponsibility, of mental disorder, or escape; suicide and assisted suicide should never be the carte blanche solution. However, there are times when medically and ethically, as with abortion, the ending of life, especially when done to save another, becomes the choice of the individual or individuals involved, and each circumstance must be judged with equity. Life should never be considered so precious in quantity, that its quality is sacrificed.

In redefining my position, there is the assumption that I agree with the unmentioned parts of Humanist Manifesto II, but with a different understanding than the solely non-theists perspective of the manifesto. What is humanizing and what is dehumanizing I do not see as independent from God, but are integrated with our relationship with God. To be divorced from that relationship becomes a dehumanizing experience; to be in relationship with God, becomes part of what is humanizing.

My signing of the manifesto is a part of my past. I can agree with much of it, but more now as an outsider. God is no longer irrelevant to my perspective.

[Note:] Please also see my comments on Humanist Manifesto III, from the AHA.