From ideas to action: how humanism can better share its message

By David McKnight

In this article, David reflects on decades of involvement in humanist and science advocacy, exploring how humanist ideas are communicated, who gets to shape them, and how participation, clarity and cooperation might help humanism connect more effectively with the wider public.

David is a retired science teacher and a Nuffield Chemist. He has a BSc Honours degree in Metallurgy and a Master’s degree in Education from Reading University.

Editor’s note

This article reflects one humanist’s long personal journey through science advocacy, local organising, and national campaigning. David McKnight’s contribution is published here as part of a wider conversation in this issue about how humanism communicates its values, builds participation, and remains relevant in a changing cultural landscape. Readers may not agree with every diagnosis or proposal, but we hope it prompts reflection on how ideas move from conviction into community.

“Throughout history, humanity’s greatest achievements have come not from isolated individuals, but from cooperation. If humanism is to flourish, it will do so in the same way.”

The purpose of humanism

I recently attended a humanist book club which addressed the question: ‘What is the purpose of Humanism?’ In my opinion, no real breakthrough emerged. I would define humanism as an approach to life that draws on science, reason and open inquiry to seek compassionate and practical ways of understanding and improving the human condition, while remaining open to further investigation and revision.

With this definition in mind, I would add that humanists, like all people, differ in perspective, ability and experience – and I include myself in that. And so I offer the following in a spirit of openness and good faith. I am always willing to apologise if any suggestion causes offence, and I am equally willing to debate any point in order to reach an honest ‘agreement to differ’.

My aim is to encourage people to think for themselves while avoiding unnecessary hurt. I also hope to develop a new group of activists to help manage my online project, Humanists4Science, on Facebook and elsewhere.

I include this preface because I want to make some organisational suggestions for change within Humanists UK. They are not intended to offend, but to reflect my own experiences both within and beyond organised humanism. I have remained silent for too long, and I now feel it is time to speak.

A selection of principles and proposals

The perspective behind these suggestions is shaped by my work with Humanists4Science where I share and discuss ideas about education, critical thinking and the role of science in everyday life. What follows is a selection of the principles and proposals that have emerged from those discussions, offered as practical ways of encouraging independent thought and a more human-centred approach to learning.

1. Make science education simpler, more frequent and more personal

Learning to think for oneself is a natural outcome of this approach. While group learning can be valuable, each individual ultimately carries responsibility for their own life and decisions. Education should strengthen confidence rather than dependence.

2. Rethink perception and flexibility in teaching

Through the work of neuroscientist Beau Lotto on perception, I encountered ideas that apply equally to sport, games and science: the importance of flexible thinking and of understanding how we see and interpret the world. Used thoughtfully, these ideas could transform classroom teaching by reducing reliance on commands and encouraging greater free will, curiosity and confidence in children.

3. Use machine learning to personalise education

Breaking learning into small, focused units could free teachers’ time and allow for more individualised, remote support. Each unit might include a stimulus to spark curiosity, illustrations or diagrams, and a short test question. Progress would build towards a final certification of achievement, potentially reducing reliance on traditional exams – an approach that could be especially valuable in times of disruption, such as during pandemics.

4. Support all abilities without limiting potential

Teaching methods should encourage every child to attempt an answer before being told the solution, thereby building confidence and engagement rather than passive learning. This approach avoids prematurely ‘streaming’ students into ability groups.

5. Favour mixed-ability groups

Learning alongside a range of abilities is socially and educationally beneficial. In the long run, students gain a broader understanding of themselves and others.

6. Go beyond interfaith dialogue

While participation in interfaith groups is valuable, I would also encourage the development of ‘Sceptics and Believers’ clubs — spaces where religious and non-religious perspectives can meet in open, critical and respectful discussion.

7. Make learning more enjoyable

Education should leave room for creativity, humour and experimentation – even, for example, exploring how a ‘theory of comedy’ might illuminate how we learn and communicate.

These educational and cultural proposals reflect a broader concern about how organised humanism itself has evolved. To understand why I believe humanist organisations now struggle to foster the independence, participation and creativity they once encouraged, it is worth looking back at how the movement was structured in earlier decades.

The UK humanist movement in the 1960s and 1970s and recent change

After joining the humanist movement in 1962, inspired by Bertrand Russell writing in the now-defunct magazine The Plain View, I encountered an organisation characterised by broad thinking and active volunteer committees. Members participated in a wide range of interest groups, including peace, housing and population issues, and many contributed professional skills – such as copywriting and advertising – on a voluntary basis.

This began to change as Humanists UK staff numbers increased and the open membership forum was discontinued. During the rise of social media, members might have been able to contribute more meaningfully, but leadership and continuity at the grassroots level declined. Andrew Copson remained an effective national leader, but committees increasingly came under the direction of staff less closely connected to the diversity of members’ views. In my experience, this contributed to a gradual decline in both membership engagement and influence – a trend that, to my mind, continues today.

A personal view: science, campaigning, and organisational change

One concrete example of this shift, from my perspective, can be seen in the changing place of science within organised humanism – and in my own attempts to encourage greater member involvement in shaping how science education is promoted.

While volunteering at the British Humanist Association (BHA, now known as Humanists UK) office in 2007, I suggested forming a special committee of scientific ‘worthies’ to help promote science education. The BHA was already providing high-quality science lectures and videos, keeping members informed and engaged. These activities were efficiently managed, largely without requiring direct involvement from individual members.

Through my volunteering, I was appointed – without election – to serve for two years on the BHA’s trustees and governance committee. During this period, a small ‘BHA Science Group’ was formed, but it was disbanded after only a few meetings, which I found deeply disappointing.

This essay reflects, in part, on that abrupt ending. Some suggested that scientists struggled to cooperate, though I did not share that view. Notably, there is currently no formal philosophy committee either, which may reflect a wider decline in opportunities for member-led input.

When the BHA later ended its system of such member associations, I responded by becoming the first convenor of a members-only group, Humanists4Science (H4S), with the aim of encouraging greater participation from the grassroots. I have never been entirely confident in my role as a chair – I tend to think before I speak – but the group was born out of a desire to restore a sense of shared ownership and involvement among members.

A brief history of Humanists4Science

Humanists4Science began as a small, informal grouping intended to encourage member-led engagement with science from a non-executive, grassroots perspective. A handful of science enthusiasts first met in the tower at Conway Hall, where we sketched out plans for what we hoped would become a more participatory and outward-facing initiative.

Before long, however, the BHA formally severed its relationship with the group. For about a year, we kept in touch through group conference calls, before establishing an online presence using Yahoo Groups. When that platform was discontinued, we briefly moved elsewhere before eventually settling on Facebook, where the group remains today.

One early proposal was to ensure that each local humanist group had a designated science representative, helping to embed scientific engagement more firmly across the movement. What I consider our most significant success, however, was a campaign to ensure that the word ‘science’ was not removed from the BHA’s mission statement – something I believe would not have happened so easily in earlier decades.

We were later granted a small table at the 2014 World Humanist Congress in Oxford, where I served as a voluntary steward. Despite this, and despite our efforts to operate independently while offering appropriate disclaimers, the group struggled to flourish without sustained support from headquarters. Over time, committee members moved on to other, better-supported organisations, leaving a small administrative core.

More recently, Panos Fellas, Chair of Watford Humanists, and I formed a joint partnership to explore ways of strengthening our respective projects and their potential for wider impact.

It also became clear to us that stronger coordination with headquarters was essential. On one occasion, we applied for a stall at the Cheltenham Festival, only to discover that HQ had scheduled an important, science-focused general meeting at the same time, which committee members were expected to attend. We were grateful that the Chair of Trustees attended the stall to respond to public enquiries, and we appreciated that gesture of support.

Experiences of participation and exclusion

Along the way, I also encountered moments that, to my mind, reflected the wider challenges of participation and openness within organised humanism. For example, when a newly established local humanist group formed, I suggested a practical way of identifying potential speakers: each volunteer would offer a short, 20-minute presentation, with those who showed promise then being invited to lead a full-length session. I gave a talk titled ‘Can We Do Science by Soundbite?’, exploring how the media presents scientific ideas. However, no one – including myself – was subsequently invited to develop their contribution into a full evening event.

On another occasion, after attending a committee meeting, I received an email – apparently not intended for me, but copied to others – expressing dissatisfaction with several of my ideas. The concerns were not raised directly with me, and when I attempted to open a conversation about them, I received no response. I chose not to pursue the matter formally, but it reinforced my sense that clearer and more constructive channels for disagreement would benefit humanist groups.

For a period, I also joined an online intergroup forum titled ‘Keeping Humanists Together’. I attempted to contribute some suggestions, but was later informed that participation was limited to two members per local group. At the time, I was not affiliated with a local group, despite maintaining my membership of Humanists UK, and so I did not pursue this avenue further.

Taken together, these experiences shaped my view that humanism needs to give greater attention to how it encourages open dialogue, disagreement, and meaningful participation – not only in principle, but in everyday practice. And I believe these examples reflect wider governance challenges faced by many – though not all – local humanist groups.

For our movement to thrive, it needs a more open and transparent approach to how it communicates, both internally and with the public. This means creating spaces where leaders actively welcome fresh perspectives and where members feel able to take part in democratic discussion without fear of being dismissed. Reintroducing an open online forum, grounded in principles of free expression and mutual respect, would give members a shared platform to exchange views and ideas candidly, helping to rebuild trust between local groups and national leadership.

At the same time, a more coordinated and confident public presence – in local radio, the local press, and on social media – could help challenge misconceptions and highlight the values and achievements of humanism to a wider audience.

Taken together, these steps could help bridge internal divides, strengthen a sense of shared purpose, and ensure that humanism remains a visible, inclusive and constructive force in public life.

Proposals for a more participatory structure

I recognise that I have limited influence over how Humanists UK is structured, and I offer these thoughts not as a formal blueprint, but as suggestions shaped by my experience of other organisations and systems of governance.

Advances in digital communication have significantly reduced the barriers that once made coordination between national headquarters and local groups difficult. This raises the question of whether decision-making and initiative always need to be concentrated at the centre, or whether more responsibility and creativity could be encouraged at the local level.

There are, of course, functions that clearly belong with Head Office: supporting parliamentary engagement, maintaining relationships with political parties and external organisations, and coordinating national campaigns. The fact that there are now around 170 MPs across different parties who identify with humanist values reflects the success of this work.

At the same time, some initiatives – such as approaches to recruitment, outreach and community engagement – might benefit from being piloted locally, with successful ideas then shared more widely across the network of groups.

One practical step could be to strengthen training and support for volunteers and local leaders, drawing on professional expertise where available, to help develop consistent standards and good practice.

More broadly, I would like to see stronger channels for collective decision-making among local groups themselves. Regular online roundtables or regional meetings for group chairs could provide a space to exchange experience, coordinate activities, and identify common challenges. Many members, including those with professional and organisational experience, represent a valuable and often underused resource for this kind of shared learning and leadership.

My hope is that steps like these could help humanism become not just a set of national campaigns, but a more visibly connected and collaborative movement at the local level.

Conclusion

In summary, I believe progress in humanism begins with a willingness to examine our assumptions and to be clear about what we mean by the words we use. If we can agree on definitions – or at least state our differences openly – we create a foundation for exploring a wider range of possibilities and for testing ideas in the real world, rather than only in discussion.

I readily acknowledge that I have made mistakes along the way, both in developing these ideas and in trying to share them. But it is often through error, misunderstanding and revision that learning takes place. That, in itself, is a deeply human process.

My hope is that humanism can become more confident in trusting its members to take the initiative, experiment locally, and contribute in practical ways. The task of extending the benefits of humanist thinking to wider society cannot rest solely with national structures or formal leadership. It belongs to all of us. If opportunities for learning and engagement are ignored, something more than knowledge is lost: we lose chances for personal growth, mutual understanding and shared purpose.

Throughout history, humanity’s greatest achievements have come not from isolated individuals, but from cooperation. If humanism is to flourish, it will do so in the same way – through people working together, in good faith, in their own communities, to make reason, compassion and responsibility part of everyday life.

Further information

• Humanists4Science Facebook group 

• Humanists UK hosts the Group Representatives' Annual Meeting to support the work of partner groups

• Humanist Groups Working Together is an online UK network which meets bi-monthly via Zoom