We were to document with the text, which is not my favourite way of documenting things. Even so, I am posting this the way we did it in my creative non-fiction class and then where applicable I will add links to the web pages mentioned at the end of the article.

A History of the Humanist Manifestos

The Humanist Manifesto, found in Corliss Lamont's book titled The Philosophy of Humanism or on the American Humanist Association (AHA) website, is a written statement that declares publicly the intentions, motives, and views of Humanists, which are modified, improved, or reapplied as society changes, but the most basic ideas of modern Humanism have remained strikingly consistent and unwavering. It is a misunderstood and criticized document by many, especially the religious, who do not know what Humanism is. The Manifesto is an ever-evolving statement of a philosophy and lifestance, not a creed or doctrine of a religion. These misconceptions about Humanism have existed since 1933 when the first Humanist Manifesto was written and publicized.

First, a generic definition of Humanism is necessary in order to explain the various changes over the years. The AHA, established in 1941, defines Humanism as "a progressive philosophy of life that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfilment that aspire to the greater good of humanity". This definition covers both Religious and Secular Humanists' basic principles.

However, Religious Humanists have non-theistic beliefs based on their religious cultural background and not the traditional religious beliefs of the theistic doctrine. Non-theism simply includes both atheism and agnosticism or those who live their lives without theism. The Unitarians who assisted in forming the first Humanist Manifesto in 1933 were Religious Humanists and probably shared similar views to those like Bishop John Shelby Spong; author of Why Christianity Must Change or Die, Anthony Freeman; author of God In Us: A Case for Christian Humanism, and Don Cupitt; author of Reforming Christianity. All three men are retired bishops and priest of the Anglican Communion. Their view does not see the Bible as the inerrant word of God nor does it recognize a supernatural deity. In fact, Anthony Freeman not only states religion is a human creation in his book God in Us: A Case for Christian Humanism, he also says, on page 22:

If we are to take seriously the non-supernatural form of Christianity, which I am commending, then the emphasis of religion shifts from heaven to earth, from the next world to this one, and from dogma to spirituality and ethics. But religion still has an important place in human life.

In addition, on page 37 he continues, "The idea that the Holy Spirit is a supernatural force invading this world (with or without wind and fire), and the idea of God the father as a supernatural person somewhere beyond the realms of time and space, have got to go."

The Sea of Faith, which is a mix of Unitarian Universalists, Quakers, and Anglicans, gives their view with this definition on their site:

Sea of Faith is most closely associated with the non-realist approach to religion. This refers to the belief that God has no 'real', objective or empirical existence, independent of human language and culture; God is 'real' in the sense that he is a potent symbol, metaphor or projection, but He has no objective existence outside and beyond the practice of religion. Non-realism therefore entails a rejection of all supernaturalism - miracles, afterlife and the agency of spirits.

Its stated aim is to 'explore and promote religious faith as a human creation'.

These quotes are essentially non-theistic, certainly non-supernaturalistic, though they still affirm some legitimacy for god talk. They focus on the idea that God is a human concept that is natural to the human, such as love and compassion, instead of supernatural, and they call themselves Religious Humanists, but there are Judaic Humanists, such as Greg Epstein who is the Humanist Chaplin of Harvard University, and Islamic Humanists like Salman Rushdie. Therefore, definitions and descriptions vary just as much as other forms of Humanism. Some may give a cultural definition instead of a human concept of these ideas, but the generic definition states that Religious Humanism emerged out of Ethical Culture, Unitarianism, and Universalism. The intended sense of "religious" here, according to Frederick Edwords in his essay "What is Humanism" found on the AHA website, is a functional one, in which religion serves the personal and social needs of a group of people sharing the same philosophical worldview. The concepts of Religious Humanism do not focus on the supernatural or an external realm separate from earth, but rather on a natural concept that is internal to the human. Yet science and reason are important to both Religious and Secular Humanism, but the latter has no religious views. Science and reason are two of the ways as to how humanistic thought changes over time.

Now these various definitions are important because the Humanist Manifesto I was drawn up by Unitarians, especially those who feared a creed, and Secular Humanists. This document is not a creed or a statement of doctrine, because Humanism is not a faith. It is a philosophy and stance for an ethical way of life that strives to better humanity without supernaturalism. It rejects dogma and extreme religious views, but it is not against religion, contrary to the religious conservatives. Instead, it seeks to give constructive criticism concerning religious dogma that could be harmful to society. All three Humanist Manifestos affirm life, science, and ethics even though revisions were made over the years, due to society always changing, because none of them is set in stone, unlike religious doctrine.

The first manifesto supports science in its first two statements that say, "Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created" and "Humanism believes that man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as a result of a continuous process". This is Evolution and not Creationism/Intelligent Design. The importance of science remains a constant in all three documents, but the wording varies as they are revised to fit the times. The Manifesto I sixth affirmation also makes the same claim that Bishop Spong has said in his "Call for a New Reformation", "Theism, as a way of defining God, is dead. Therefore, most theological God-talk is today meaningless.  A new way to speak of God must be found." However, the manifesto phrases it as "We are convinced that the time has passed for theism, deism, modernism, and several varieties of "new thought"." This does not mean that Humanists are anti-religious or anti-God, but rather focus on more natural concepts.

The reaction to the Humanist Manifesto was met in a variety of ways and conservative Christians showed their attitudes strongly. Edwin H. Wilson gives an account in chapter fourteen of one of the reactions in his Genesis of a Humanist Manifesto, which can be found online at infidels.org: A reporter, on May 19, 1933, chose to ignore that over half of the 34 signers of the first manifesto were members of the clergy. Instead, he chose to interview college professors concerning the manifesto, one of whom became very heated with the discussion, and the interview ended up being titled "Finlay's Conversion of Thomas". Finlay, a very devote Christian, soon became extremely enraged as he listened to Thomas, an enthusiastic Humanist, denying the existence of God. The Christian finally exploded as he got in Thomas’s face and said, "Thomas, you say just once more that there is no God, and I will knock Hell out of YOU." Then the Christian decked him.

This was how some Christians traditionally converted people, even in 1933, regardless of the non-violent stance of the dissenter. Wilson even wraps up the story by saying, "Truly, the spirit of the Inquisition was not lacking even in the early days of this century. In the name of the gentle Jesus, doctrinaire Christians—even in 1933—were ready to use violence to support their beliefs." It would seem history only repeats itself. Sadly, Bishop Spong and Anthony Freeman have not received much better treatment with their non-theistic ideas. In fact, it is sometimes worse for Spong in that he has received death threats that he had to take seriously... from Christians. It would seem all rational thinking goes out the window with the Bible and Christian ethics when one deviates from the norm.

Non-theism, reason, ethics, democracy, and education remain constants throughout the years as the document is revised. The second manifesto, found on AHA website and Lamont's books, was drafted in 1973. It states clearly that it is still non-theistic as well as indicates some of the flaws of the first one and offers some of the reasons for producing a new one in its preface. The weaknesses mentioned about the first one, drafted in 1933, was that it was "far too optimistic", failed to recognize some of the human frailties concerning peace and war, problems of an non-democratic government, and problems of totalitarianism. It admits that science can be used for evil as well as good, the need for equality for everyone, and some of the problems with dogmatic ideology. It closes the preface of the Manifesto II by stating, "Those who sign Humanist Manifesto II disclaim that they are setting forth a binding credo; their individual views would be stated in widely varying ways."

Thus it is a progressive and positive declaration that supersedes the first one, not a creed, and is subject to change when found in error or new information becomes available. Therefore, it is not set in stone or based in dogma, yet it is interesting to note that some Religious Humanist groups still focus on the Humanist Manifesto II of 1973, which does focus more on religious thought than the Humanist Manifesto III. Many Religious Humanists were also involved in this updated version, which is still non-theistic and rejects the supernaturalism, dogmatism, and oppression of traditional religious views. This is not anti-religion, but rather constructive criticism of things that restrict the growth of the individual and potentially destroy society. It "rejects all religious, ideological, or moral codes that denigrate the individual, suppress freedom, dull intellect, dehumanize personality." However, some Christians misunderstand or refuse to see how their behaviours harm others. Yet, Humanism is not entirely against religion nor is it at war with Christianity. It does not want to destroy religion either. Rather the Religious Humanists or Christian Humanists, like Spong, who still espouse the ideas of the Manifesto II want to see religion become more compassionate and focused more on the human. They believe this can be achieved by "living life fully, loving wastefully, and striving to better humanity", according to Spong and others in this school of thought.

In fact, it gives constructive criticism of religion, rather than tears it down, and reflects the school of thought of Spong, Cupitt, and Freeman express in their various books. The first two statements address religion and it starts by saying, "In the best sense, religion may inspire dedication to the highest ethical ideals. The cultivation of moral devotion and creative imagination is an expression of genuine "spiritual" experience and aspiration." "Spiritual" experience is part of being human and like other things that inspire the human, it should not be hindered, but the definition of the word spiritual is more naturalistic for the Humanist and has nothing to do with the supernatural aspects that religion calls spiritual.

Just as the last Humanist Manifesto did, the first article goes on to state that Humanists begin with the human and feel traditional dogmatic or authoritarian religions that place revelation, God, ritual, or creed above human needs and experience do a disservice to the human species. Humanists stress the importance of scientific knowledge and like Spong; believe that traditional religions must be reinterpreted and reinvest them with meanings appropriate to the current situation. Humanists appreciate the need to preserve the best ethical teachings in religious traditions and recognize the traditions offer solace to humans, but they reject those that deny humans a full appreciation of their own potentialities and responsibilities. The first article ends by saying, "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."

The second article states what elements of religion they feel are harmful and distract humans from present concerns, self-actualization, and rectifying social injustices, adding that modern science discredits some historic concepts, but affirms that humans emerged from natural evolutionary forces. Here again is the idea of Evolution and the paragraph states some of the Humanists' non-theistic beliefs within this part of the manifesto, while acknowledging that traditional religions fulfil some human social needs and it is not the only obstacle to human progress.

This is not being anti-religious or anti-God, but rather it points out the various issues of religious extremism as well as how it impedes the development of the human. Humanism does not seek to end or destroy religion, but rather the potential damaging affects it can have on the human as it gives constructive criticism that hopefully improves society.

This second document also upholds the idea of Separation of Church and State, which supports the First Amendment of the United States, the dignity of the individual, ethics, non-violence, education, and freedom. It states that moral values are derived from human experience and that human life has meaning because we create and develop our own futures by striving for the good life in the here and now. It goes on to say reason and intelligence are the most effective instruments that humankind possesses as it states the value of the sciences as the solution to human problems. As for the individual, the manifesto stresses the preciousness and dignity of the individual, as well as striving for his or her potential in life, social responsibility, and freedom of choice. It encourages a democratic society by insisting that there should be a full range of civil liberties in all societies, including freedom of speech, religious liberty, a universal education, equality, and other rights expressed in the Constitution of the United States.

The Humanist Manifesto III, drafted in 2003 by the AHA, is a shorter version, which says nothing about religion, but it states the aspirations of Humanism, and was signed by Religious and Secular Humanists alike, as well as various university professors, just as previous manifestos were. It states, "Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfilment that aspire to the greater good of humanity." It further states, "The lifestance of Humanism- guided by reason, inspired by compassion, and informed by experience- encourages us to live life well and fully. It evolved through the ages and continues to develop through the efforts of thoughtful people who recognize that values and ideals, however carefully wrought, are subject to change as our knowledge and understandings advance." It reaffirms the basic values of Humanism, which are science, non-violence, working to benefit society, ethical values derived from need and interest as tested by experience, and humans being an integral part of nature as well as freedom, as it explains why it is once again updated to fit the times.

There is a Humanist Manifesto 2000, drafted by Paul Kurtz, who is the founder and chairman of the Council of Secular Humanism (CSH), established sometime after 1973. This manifesto calls for a New Planetary Humanism that also espouses these same values with great optimism. It is supported by Secular Humanists in many countries, not just the United States, but it is not the AHA's manifesto, thus why there are two manifestos after the second one. There were no Religious Humanists who signed the Humanist Manifesto 2000, as noted in the book called "Humanist Manifesto 2000: A Call For A New Planetary Humanism", copyrighted 1999. This does not mean it is better or inferior though, it just means there are at least two separate Humanist groups, one being strictly secular and the other covering a wide variety of Humanists.

However, with all these documents that state what Humanism is about and what Humanists believe, there are still misconceptions about it. The first is that many think it is a religion, but according to Fred Edwords, Director of Communications for the AHA, in a personal correspondence, "the AHA has gone on record in the past to state that, while Humanism is a religion to some, it is a secular philosophy for others". There is no dogma, doctrine, sacred texts, or central authority telling people what they should or should not think and believe nor do they go out and convert people, either.

According to Matt Cherry and Molleen Matsumura in their article, call "10 Myths About Secular Humanism" found on CSH website, "there is no central authority and no process for indoctrinating or converting people to Secular Humanism. People come to secular humanism by following their own curiosity and reasoning." Humanists do not worship humans or anything else. Cherry and Matsumura help to debunk this myth in their article by stating, "We are far too realistic to worship humanity. While we recognize that all human beings have the potential to do good, we also realize that the potential exists for acts of great evil." The same things can be said of Humanism in general too and Greg Epstein paraphrases it well in his interview with The Humanist magazine, the March 2007 edition, when he said,

My humanism is not a proselytizing humanism. I don't go out trying to convince people to abandon belief in God, hoping that will somehow cure all ills. However, my humanism is not a silent humanism either. The difference is the approach: ours should be to educate anyone—everyone— about what humanists do believe in. Why we see God as a human creation, not vice versa. Why we feel this life, this world, is the only one we have and especially how such beliefs help us to live good, meaningful, productive, and joyous lives.

Humanism is not a political movement nor is it unpatriotic, and Humanists have a wide range of political views. Cherry and Matsumura state this myth is also combined by the myth that "the United States was created as a Christian Nation". They help to dismantle this myth by pointing out that there are no references to God or Christianity in the Constitution. The only reference to religion is the freedom of religion clause and the separation of Church and State in the First Amendment. Once again, Humanists uphold this as well as the rest of the Constitution.

As for matters of faith, Alistair J. Sinclair says in his essay, found on Essays in Humanism website, "A Humanist's Faith: Towards A Humanist Alternative to Religion" that "spiritually minded humanists can accommodate what is valuable in religion without indulging in the superstitious belief in supernatural entities." He further states, "Spiritually minded humanism can go beyond religion without getting into mysticism or supernaturalism. If humanism is to replace religion in people's affections, it must be broadminded enough to embrace our spiritual aspirations and not oppose or ignore them altogether." Thus, Humanists not only tolerate religious views, but also recognize spirituality and various passages of life as a human need and some even attend various liberal churches such the Unitarian Universal or Episcopal/Anglican Churches, or form their own group to fulfil social needs. According to Sinclair, "Humanism doesn't enforce particular beliefs and the humanist is obliged to work out for himself what he does or doesn't believe." The Humanist is free to believe or not believe what they want concerning religion, as well as free to inquire into what they want for the purpose of further knowledge, and in this manner, a Humanist has religious freedom and can claim what they believe as theirs, which can, according to Sinclair, bring about a stronger faith.

The question one might ask next could be "faith in what?" The answer is anything they chose as long as it does not harm others or expect others to believe it too. One could have "faith" in science, the human potential, the human spirit, human nature, love and compassion, or even a "Ground of All Being, Source of Life" as Spong mentions. Even so, reason governs one's beliefs too, because the head must rule the heart, but this does not mean a Humanist is not passionate about what he or she believes. On the contrary, and Sinclair explains this in his article:

A humanist's faith is stronger and more reliable than any religious faith because it is based on open-minded rather than dogmatic principles. It relies not on absolute belief but on knowledge and understanding, and on the critical reasoning that self-reference requires. There is no room for dogmatic principles since all humanist principles are subject to constant review and criticism by means of self-reference. Where there is no certainty, suspension of belief is preferable to belief for its own sake.

Thus, Humanists adapt to new facts and new ways of thinking easier, but they do not abandon skeptism in favour of being open-minded nor do they change their minds on a whim. Critical thinking and reasoning are extremely important, but Edwords, who is also seen as a leader in the broader community of reason, notes, in a personal communication, that Sinclair is unique in his opinions of faith,

But in general, neither religious nor secular Humanist like to speak of having faith. That is not a popular term among us. So Sinclair isn't a mainstream representative of our view as regards that particular word usage, but if we set that little problem aside, Sinclair does end up describing Humanism correctly.

Morals and ethics are also important to a Humanist. Paul Kurtz points out in his essay 'Two Competing Moralities' on CSH website, "the recognition that each person has equal dignity and value, and that he or she ought to be considered an end and not a mere means." Equality is very important to Humanists and something to strive for as well as higher intellectual and moral values that focus on growth and development. According to Kurtz, "This implies that we tolerate the diversity of values and principles in different individuals and groups in society." However, he continues, "Moral freedom does not necessarily mean license or corruption; it does not mean a libertine style of life; for there is concern not only with freedom but with virtue." Individuals are free to pursue their own desires as long as it does not harm others. They have to take responsibility for their own actions and be considerate of others. One has to be able to change as society changes and scientific knowledge advances, but we must not use new knowledge irresponsibly or to the disadvantage of society. Kurtz ends this section with "self-control and an altruistic regard for others are essential for the full flowering of the individual."

Paul Kurtz ends his essay with these thoughts, which are well worth reading, about the religionists' attitude towards Humanism, what it stands for, and that it is something we all can share as human beings:

"Yet many religionists today decry humanist ethics and they proclaim absolute declarations and creeds. In the past, they often opposed democracy and moral freedom, tolerance, and respect for diversity. Many emphasize still today the virtue of obedience rather than of individual autonomy. Humanists respond that belief in God is no guarantee of moral virtue. Indeed, devoted believers will often kill each other over differences in doctrine or authority, and they oppose each other on issues concerning public morality: some are for and some against capital punishment, war or peace, the rights of women, minorities, euthanasia, sexual freedom, etc. Dogmatic religious doctrines especially set people against each other, leading to hypocrisy, greed, policies of retribution and punishment, chauvinism, and pride, rather than an empathetic moral regard for the needs of others. Thus there is a genuine humanist alternative to such doctrinaire points of view, which needs to be appreciated.

I submit that humanist ethical ideals, which emphasize the pursuit of happiness, moral freedom, tolerance, moral responsibility, and rational moral inquiry, are basic for social peace and ethical improvement, and that both religious and nonreligious people can share these values. To castigate humanist ethics would endanger the hard-won gains to achieve a secular state, a democratic society, and a prosperous economy serving all the citizens of society. Shall we risk the advances of social, political, and economic progress in the name of an authoritarian creed? To reject humanist morality would do precisely that: It would repeal the modern world."

Corliss Lamont titles the sixth chapter, which concerns the Ethics of Humanism in his book The Philosophy of Humanism, "The Affirmation of Life". He states on page 248,

The philosophy of Humanism constitutes a profound and passionate affirmation of the joys and beauties, the braveries and idealisms, of existence upon the earth. It heartily welcomes all life-enhancing and healthy pleasures, from the vigorous enjoyments of youth to the contemplative delights of mellowed age, from simple gratifications of food and drink, sunshine and sports, to more complex appreciation of art and literature, friendship and social communion. Humanism believes in the beauty of love and the love of beauty. It exults in the pure magnificence of external Nature. All the many-sided possibilities for good in human living the Humanist would weave into a sustain pattern of happiness under the guidance of reason.

Thus, he sums up beautifully Humanists' ideals in one paragraph. It is a positive and naturalistic philosophy of life, which embraces and affirms life with all its complexities in an ever-changing world. The humanist view is idealistic, yet realistic at the same time, as she or he strives to better themselves and humanity, and, as Robert Price's book title indicates, it is a "Reason Driven Life", that strives to bring the best out individuals.

The Humanist Manifesto states these ideas, yet it is modified, revised, or improved as society changes, thus why there is more than one. It is sadly misunderstood or condemned for being non-theistic and constantly changing, yet these are qualities for human potential and growth. Humanism is not necessarily a religion and while it constructively criticizes and rejects religious dogma, it does not wish to destroy religion, but co-exist with it. All these things are an advantage to Humanism as a philosophy and lifestance as it periodically renews and declares publicly in writing its intentions, views, and motives.

© Mriana 2007

Humanist Manifesto I

Humanist Manifesto II

Humanist Manifesto III

Humanist Manifesto 2000

"What Is Humanism",
By Fred Edwords

"Ten Myths About Secular Humanism"
By Matt Cherry and Molleen Matsumura

"Genesis of a Manifesto",
By Edwin H. Wilson

"A Humanist Faith: Towards a Humanist Alternative to Religion",
By Alistair J. Sinclair

"Two Competing Moralities",
By Paul Kurtz

The Philosophy of Humanism,
By Corliss Lamont (book download link)