Is humanism fit for purpose in the 21st century? A call for action

By Dr Mike Flood

Mike is Chair of Milton Keynes Humanists and the UK-based network Humanists for the Common Good. He also runs the Fighting Fake website. In this article, which he has written in a purely personal capacity, he asks why aren’t humanist organisations working for the common good?

The purpose of this article is to encourage a discussion within humanism around three basic questions:

a) Does humanism have a distinctive brand and unique selling point?

b) Do we need a new ‘Minimum Statement of Humanism’? (I think we do...)

c) Why aren’t humanist organisations working for the common good?

But let me start with a brief note to set the context for this conversation.

Background

Recent advances in technology (most notably smartphones, social media and AI), coupled with the polarisation of geopolitics, the demise of the rights-based international order (see note 1), and the advent of alarming and unprecedented weather events (triggered by climate change), have "significantly reduced the prospects for humans being able to live ‘happy, confident and ethical lives". And if fossil fuel use and habitat destruction can’t soon be brought under control, the future of humanity (and much of sentient life on Earth) is at best uncertain. We are clearly at a dangerous point in humankind's life story and I’d like humanist organisations to recognise this reality and review their campaign priorities accordingly. In particular, I’d like to see spokesmen and women playing a more prominent role in promoting "humanism for the common good" in line with what we proclaim in Humanist Declarations and the mantra we like to promote: "Think for yourself. Act for everyone."

Little Fight or Great Fight? The idea of humanists working for everyone has been around for a long time: the eminent Dutch Humanist, Jaap van Praag (one of Humanists International’s founding fathers) was championing the cause back in the 1960s when he called on humanists to move beyond the "Little Fight" (lobbying for the legitimate but limited interests of non-believers) and take on the "Great Fight" (i.e. tackling the more universal challenges that humanists believe must be overcome for the benefit of all people). More recently, Peter Derkx has pointed out that “In the context of present‐day Dutch society, a humanist movement that gives priority to the fight against religious bigotry and theocratic tendencies has no future... Where humanists give priority to the great fight for human rights (for everybody, but especially for the most vulnerable people), for peace and for a sustainable economy and a clean and beautiful natural environment, it becomes anachronistic to define humanism as necessarily non‐ or even anti‐religious.”

Campaign focus: Currently humanist organisations in Europe and North America are primarily focused on "campaigning for secularism" and "promoting the humanist life stance", whilst in the Global South a small contingent of brave and courageous humanists are stressing people’s basic right to freedom from religion and "fighting for acceptance". But virtually all of this is being done in the context of the Little Fight and not the Great Fight. And I think this is a mistake.

A variety of humanist logos

Towards a USP and distinctive humanist brand

I’ve written elsewhere about the importance of humanists having a distinguishing brand and organisations adopting a distinctive logo (rather than variations on a theme). Indeed, the original "happy human" logo was the winning entry in a British Humanist Association competition held back in 1965; and at the time entrants were asked to: “create an internationally recognisable symbol of Humanism”. Today there are significant variations in logo design, with some bearing very little resemblance to the original (shown in the badge above). The graphic shows the logos of: Humanists International, Humanists UK, Humanist Society Scotland, Humanists Canada, Humanist Association of Nigeria, Lithuanian Humanists; and Norfolk Humanists.

I also think it would be useful for our movement to have a clear USP, and one that defines humanism in terms of a positive approach to life (without mentioning God or religion). And as I couldn’t locate one online and wasn’t convinced by what ChatGPT came up with (see box below — the USPs for organised religion are much better!), I’d like to propose:

Humanism: “Striving for a fairer, more compassionate world in the one life we have.” Or “Being good for goodness’ sake in the one life we have.”

It would be good to get readers’ thoughts on these.

A New Minimum Statement on Humanism?

Humanists International has a "minimum statement on humanism". It reads as follows:

“Humanism is a democratic and ethical life stance, which affirms that human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives. It stands for the building of a more humane society through an ethics based on human and other natural values in a spirit of reason and free inquiry through human capabilities. It is not theistic, and it does not accept supernatural views of reality." (71 words)

This is all well and good, but it fails to mention "one life", "science", or "equality" — or "our responsibility to current and future generations" and "the natural world" (see below), so I’d like to propose an alternative:

“Humanists believe in making the most of the one life we have, lived within our means and the planet’s capacity. We have a secularist worldview based on reason, science and compassion, and strive for a fairer and more equitable world for both current and future generations.” (46 words)

And here’s a slightly longer version:

“Humanists emphasise the intrinsic value, dignity and potential of human beings, and advocate for an ethical life centred around human welfare and compassion for others — we base our worldview on evidence-based reasoning and science. We have one life, which we aspire to live to the full without belief in an afterlife. We support universal human rights and embrace secularism; we value art, culture and personal expression as essential components of a meaningful life; and we strive for a fairer, more humane and more equitable world that takes due account of nature and the needs of both current and future generations.” (100 words)

I like very much the American Humanist Association description of humanism in its (2003) Humanism Manifesto III, so I asked ChatGPT to summarise it in 100 words, and this is what it came up with:

“Humanist Manifesto III emphasises a progressive philosophy advocating for ethical living without reliance on theism or supernatural beliefs. It promotes human dignity, rights, and responsibilities, emphasising reason, compassion, and scientific inquiry as the foundations for improving the human condition. The manifesto calls for a commitment to human welfare and the planet, advocating for social justice, environmental sustainability, and a secular approach to addressing global challenges. It underscores the importance of individual freedom and the pursuit of happiness, while recognising our interconnectedness and collective responsibility to contribute to humanity's betterment.”

Humanism for the Common Good

Over the years much has been written about humanists’ philosophy and beliefs. I want to focus in particular on what it says in three key declarations, namely that humanists:

• recognise “our dependence on and responsibility for the natural world” and our “duty of care to all of humanity including future generations” (2002 Amsterdam Declaration);

• call upon “all humanist organizations, civil society in general, and all individuals around the world to: highlight to their governments and regional bodies the need for urgent action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and make land-use and resource extraction sustainable, and to protect and conserve wild habitats” (2019 Reykjavik Declaration on the Climate Change Crisis); and

• affirm that democracy “is a universal fundamental value that is essential to the realization of humanist principles worldwide...” and must be “actively defended against all threats” including those from autocratic regimes and “other forces that seek to undermine democratic values and institutions.” (2023 Copenhagen Declaration on Democracy). (The emphases are mine.)

It may surprise readers to learn that religion is mentioned just once in these declarations — and neither "God" nor the "supernatural" make an appearance. And there’s no reference to religion in Humanism Manifesto III. The one mention is in the Amsterdam Declaration, where it says: “Humanism meets the widespread demand for a source of meaning and purpose to stand as an alternative to dogmatic religion, authoritarian nationalism, tribal sectarianism, and selfish nihilism.” (My emphasis.) So why are humanists so fixated on the Little Fight?

Campaign Priorities: I appreciate that there is still much to be done to counter religious privilege and indoctrination of the young with religious dogma, but does this really excuse the failure of humanist organisations to step up to the plate when it comes to our “duty of care to all of humanity including future generations” and “our responsibility for the natural world” (Amsterdam); or heeding the call to highlight “the need for urgent action” on climate change (Reykjavik - see note 1). And what about the growing threat to reason and truth posed by disinformation, and the profound ethical questions raised by the development of AI — and not least how advances in the technology will affect our understanding of what it means to be human (or transhuman - See note 2)?

There hasn’t yet been a "Humanist Declaration on AI" but I’d be surprised if it is long in coming. And the headlong battle for global supremacy in AI (in the absence of reassuring regulation) and the likelihood of error/unintended consequences, is also deeply concerning. Indeed, the widespread (mis)use of facial recognition technology and the development of autonomous weapons systems raise so many ethical questions about what kind of world we want to live in. And then there’s disinformation and the pledge “to actively defend against... forces that seek to undermine democratic values and institutions” (Copenhagen).

In most of these areas, humanist organisations seem to be missing in action, preoccupied with the Little Fight and celebrating humanist heritage rather than fighting for the common good and showing what humanism has to offer. Over the years I’ve made no secret of the fact that I’m worried about the social and political ramifications of false information, artificial intelligence and climate change, not least because they pose a direct threat to the things that I hold most dear: the truth; our basic rights, human dignity and wellbeing; and living sustainably on Planet Earth. I think humanist organisations (at least those in Europe & North America) should be working with other groups with in-depth specialist knowledge to tackle these issues, and putting less emphasis on fighting against religious privilege and bishops in the House of Lords or legalising humanist marriages (in England & Wales) - see note 4.

I wonder too whether there’s a case for humanist organisations signing up to the (2019) ‘"Vienna Manifesto on Digital Humanism", which proclaims, among other things, that “we must shape technologies in accordance with human values and needs, instead of allowing technologies to shape humans”? (see note 5). Or is this a different form of humanism?

I’ve summarised my concerns in Annex 1 and would be interested to hear from anyone who (still) thinks humanists should restrict their campaigning to the interests of non-believers.

"Leave it to Others": And can we please get away from the idea that humanist organisations should not be campaigning on lies and false information, AI or climate change because “other organisations are doing so”? If you follow this "logic", someone with mischievous intent might want to argue that there’s actually no need for humanist organisations per se as other organisations are campaigning on the very same issues (see Annex A2:3). This simply misses the point, which is the question of whether humanists have anything useful to contribute as humanists to the debate about these emerging contemporary issues. And what does it say about humanism and humanists if we do not?

Conclusion

In this article I have proposed a new "Minimum Statement for Humanism" that sets our life stance and philosophy in a broader context; and I’ve suggested a USP for humanism. It would be good to get readers' thoughts on this. I have also made the case for humanist organisations getting involved in the Great Fight and taking seriously the threats posed by lies/false information, AI and climate change. And I’ve explored how these issues can and do compromise what humanists hold most dear: the truth; liberal democracy; what it means to be human; living sustainably on planet Earth — and our (and other people’s) happiness and wellbeing.

I think such a change in approach would be well-received, especially by younger generations who want more action and less "blah, blah". It might also help broaden our reach: people who say that they don’t believe in God now account for more than 50% of the UK population, but relatively few know what humanism is, or show any interest in finding out. Why should they? Indeed, it seems somewhat perverse to be leaving it up to others, including organised religion (see note 6), to make the running on the major threats identified. And I think simply paying lip service to people’s concerns (examples in Annex 2.4) rather than actually getting involved reflects badly on humanists’ concerns and priorities.

I also think grassroots humanists would appreciate guidance on just how to live ‘happy, confident and ethical lives in these deeply troubling times, and how best we as individuals can aspire to be "good ancestors" to those who come after. And I think we should give more attention to how we can give people hope and the means (and the confidence) to challenge the threats and help demonstrate humanism’s relevance and potential.

Further information

Mike's Fighting Fake website is here

The full version of this article with extensive Annexes is here

Notes

1. I’ve written about the sad state of global politics and the disrespect for international law (including by China, Russia & the US), in my paper ‘Challenging Conundrums’ [Apr 2023].

2. See also Resolution on Climate Change adopted in Aug 2017 by the American Humanists Association, which reads “The Earth’s climate is experiencing destabilization, and our planet’s ability to sustain life as we know it is in crisis. Humanists must join others in leading efforts to reduce human activities causing climate change to ecologically sustainable levels. Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree that climate change is real and human induced, and the consensus is that we must stabilise global temperatures at the two-degree Celsius target to prevent dangerous impacts to humans, flora, and fauna. The consequences of our actions — and inaction — regarding the destruction of our environment for ourselves and future generations mandate a naturalistic social responsibility inherent to humanist values.” [My emphasis]

3. Here for the record are some ethical concerns raised by transhumanism: ensuring that individuals fully understand the implications and risks of enhancements, which includes potential long-term consequences that might not be immediately apparent; there may be social pressure to undergo enhancements to remain competitive in various fields, potentially undermining genuine autonomy; enhancements could alter social interactions and relationships, potentially leading to new forms of discrimination or societal division between enhanced and non-enhanced individuals; enhancements that significantly alter human experience might affect individuals' sense of purpose and the meaning of life; technologies developed for enhancement could be misused for harmful purposes, such as creating biological weapons or invasive surveillance tools; determining appropriate regulatory frameworks to oversee the development and implementation of enhancement technologies is a significant ethical challenge; and enhancements might lead to scenarios that threaten the existence of humanity, such as creating superintelligent AI that could act against human interests.

4. Let me note here that some in the Global South also want change: Leo Igwe of the Nigerian Humanist Movement recently called for a “move from Western world humanism to truly global humanism”, noting that “The world has been undergoing rapid changes but the way that freethought is organized has been out of step with the changes, and with the times...”

5. Leading figures in the "Digital Humanism" movement spoke at the 2023 World Humanist Congress in Copenhagen — see session Parallel 6.

6. Steven Croft, the Bishop of Oxford, sits on the House of Lord's Artificial Intelligence Committee. Back in 2018 he was arguing that “every development in Artificial Intelligence raises new questions about what it means to be human” and Christians, he said “need to be part of that dialogue, aware of what is happening and making a contribution for the sake of the common good.” I argued at the time that humanists should do too and tried to get HUK to set up an advisory panel.