The Evolution of the Humanist Manifesto

Wishtank has a cool article on the evolution of the Humanist Manifesto. I wasn't terribly aware of its evolution over the years, but it makes sense that as humanism evolved from a religiously inspired rational self-interest to a more non-theistic, relativist multiculturalism, its defining document would change as well.

The Evolution of the Humanist Manifesto

As Editor of this project, it is important to me that the Wishtank community maintains an openness in regards to our motivations and principles. Transparency, as we are learning, is a virtue of truly functional and sustainable communities. With this in mind, this essay will serve as both an educational article on the evolution of humanism, as well as a notice to our readers that Wishtank is, and has always been, a humanist journal.

As many do, I developed an understanding of humanism through literature, written by or about thinkers who promote humanist thought. I came to my personal understanding of humanism through the words of Kurt Vonnegut, R. Buckminster Fuller, Albert Einstein, Julian Huxley, Erich Fromm and members of the NEK tribe, including Spencer Ford, Dan Briggs and Justin Boland.

In more directed research, I read three versions of the Humanist Manifesto that were proposed by the American Humanist Association in 1933, 1973 and 2003 respectively. The document’s evolution over the course of 70 years is inspiring and prompted me to draw up this analysis. Before we get too far along, though, we should assert a working definition of humanism so that we can share a common understanding.

What is humanism?

Kurt Vonnegut, Honorary President of AHA
from 1992 to his death on April 11, 2007

Vonnegut summed it up concisely when he said, “I am a humanist, which means, in part, that I have tried to behave decently without any expectation of rewards or punishments after I’m dead.”

The most complete and agreeable definition that we have found, though, comes from The Humanist Magazine (a publication of the American Humanist Association):

“Humanism is a rational philosophy informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by compassion. Affirming the dignity of each human being, it supports the maximization of individual liberty and opportunity consonant with social and planetary responsibility. It advocates the extension of participatory democracy and the expansion of the open society, standing for human rights and social justice. Free of supernaturalism, it recognizes human beings as a part of nature and holds that values — be they religious, ethical, social, or political — have their source in human experience and culture. Humanism thus derives the goals of life from human need and interest rather than from theological or ideological abstractions, and asserts that humanity must take responsibility for its own destiny.”

One of the most definitive attributes of humanism is that it does not rely on the supernatural, or any perceived deity or divine force. In 1933, when the original Humanist Manifesto was published, the language was mostly about summoning religions to accept the core ideas behind humanism — the idea being that science had basically nullified the supernatural and theist ideas of the world’s religions. The Manifesto includes 15 affirmations.

The fifth affirmation reads:

“Humanism asserts that the nature of the universe depicted by modern science makes unacceptable any supernatural or cosmic guarantees of human values. Obviously humanism does not deny the possibility of realities as yet undiscovered, but it does insist that the way to determine the existence and value of any and all realities is by means of intelligent inquiry and by the assessment of their relations to human needs. Religion must formulate its hopes and plans in the light of the scientific spirit and method.”

And the sixth reads:

“We are convinced that the time has passed for theism, deism, modernism, and the several varieties of “new thought.”

Read the rest of this informative article.

I can see why humanism bothers the fundies. Most religious folks (and not just fundies) have a hard time with the idea that there can be any morality without religion, and especially without God. Because orthodox religion tends to be authoritarian in its beliefs, there must be an authority, and that would be God. No God, no morality.

But the HM in its many forms reveals that that need not be the case. As this synopsis of the third version of the document demonstrates, there is no need of higher authority:

• Ethical values are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience. (See ethical naturalism.)
• Life’s fulfillment emerges from individual participation in the service of humane ideals.
• Humans are social by nature and find meaning in relationships.
• Working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness.

Human beings are by natural communal creatures. We need each other to survive -- more so in our ancient history, but even now. It is in our interest as individuals and as communities to treat each other well.

More to the point, current research suggests that the mechanism for this morality may be hard-wired into our brains in the form of altruism. If we have evolved to be altruistic (either by natural selection or by some other means) than there is no need for a God to dictate to us how to treat each other.

This, of course, doesn't mean there is no God. The ID folks would say God designed us this way, and there is no way to disprove their hypothesis.

Anyway, the HM is interesting as a document of the evolving meme of humanism.

Tags: Evolution, Humanist Manifesto, Wishtank, Philosophy, culture, Religion, Science, secularism, altruism, Kurt Vonnegut