The future of humanism: from manifestos to meaning and moral purpose

By John Coss

This is the first in a series of articles drawing on themes explored by the Greater Manchester Humanists Discussion Group. The piece reflects on different ways the ‘future of humanism’ has been imagined, from responses to global challenges such as climate change, artificial intelligence, and misinformation, to questions about meaning, belonging and moral purpose traditionally associated with religion. John is a retired actuary and former vice-chair of Stockport Humanists.

Greater Manchester Humanists launched a discussion group in 2015. We originally met in person in central Manchester, but now meet by Zoom, generally nine times a year. A discussion note is circulated a few days before a meeting as the basis for discussion. Now that we meet by Zoom, participation is not limited to GMH members or supporters. For example, one of our regular participants is Tod Lundy, a contributor to this journal who organises a similar group in the United States. We generally meet 7.30-9.00pm on the third Tuesday of the month, with typically eight to ten participants. We have discussed a wide range of topics, including:

• Free will

• Is humanism a religion?

• Epicurus

• Should drugs be legalised?

• Woke and woke comedy

• Citizens’ assemblies

• How can we know ourselves?

• Are values the new religion?

• The future of humanism

• Neurotheology – the brain and religious belief

• Planetary solvency: the actuarial approach to climate change

The future of humanism – past and present

Our discussion on the future of humanism focused on an early draft of the Manifesto on the Future of Humanism published in the February 2023 issue of Humanistically Speaking. The Manifesto was concerned largely with the role humanism might play in responding to major global challenges – such as climate change, artificial intelligence, and the spread of misinformation – and with whether humanists should see themselves as active participants in these wider public debates.

That emphasis contrasts with an alternative strand of discussion within the humanist movement, which frames the ‘future of humanism’ less in terms of public action and more in terms of what humanism can offer to people: how it might address deeper human needs traditionally met by religion.

A good example of this was the 2011 North-West Humanists conference - Humanism for the 21^st Century. At that conference, the following statement from Sam Norton, an Anglican priest, appeared in the brochure:

‘Why I enjoy engaging with sophisticated atheists so much is that they recognise, among other things, that Christianity and other religions engage in certain humanly essential pursuits which need to be addressed by anything purporting to replace them.’

This prompted a response from Michael Imison, who at the time (2011) was a British Humanist Association trustee and celebrant. He argued that Sam Norton's statement was essentially true. In exposing the superstitious basis of religion, he said, humanism must also provide an alternative, because religious activity clearly meets a human need. Otherwise, churches would not have survived long after their intellectual foundations had been challenged. Imison identified what he called ‘humanly essential pursuits’ as:

• behaving so as to do to others the least harm

• offering comradeship and support to fellow human beings

• delighting in the immaterial – imagination, love, and creativity

• satisfying human curiosity

• working to ensure the environment remains capable of supporting human life

He went on to argue that some people who call themselves humanists would limit humanist activity to resisting the influence of the churches, leaving individual behaviour entirely to personal choice. In his view, this was really secularism rather than humanism. Without addressing these ‘humanly essential pursuits’, he suggested, humanism would struggle to be widely attractive.

At the time, he offered what he saw as the BHA’s implicit responses to these challenges:

• The BHA’s vision statement described humanism as ‘an ethical and fulfilling non-religious approach to life’, implying an expectation of ethical living. What this involved, he noted, was being explored through the Ethical Juries project – an idea pioneered by him which aimed to develop clear, secular moral reasoning, ideally contributing to a shared ‘toolbox’ of moral principles.

• Local groups offered some comradeship, but often limited practical support. Some carried out charitable work, while others resisted attaching a humanist label to what members did.

• A few groups ran cultural activities — such as the BHA Choir — to counter the idea that humanists were ‘heartless materialists’.

• Talks and lectures helped satisfy curiosity, though not in any organised or coordinated way.

• The BHA was part of green alliances, but was not directly involved in environmental projects, though some local groups were.

His overall conclusion was that much more needed to be done. The conference itself also produced a list of ‘humanly essential pursuits’ from one of its break-out groups. These included:

• supporting people through difficult times, including forms of ‘chaplaincy’

• helping people cope with bereavement and care for the elderly

• addressing ‘spirituality’, understood as emotional fulfilment

• developing morality without external authority

• providing a forum for philosophical discussion and debate

• fostering fellowship and community

Conclusion

Looking back across these different moments in the humanist conversation, a recurring tension becomes visible in how the ‘future of humanism’ is imagined. On the one hand, there is a strong emphasis on public engagement: addressing global challenges, contributing to wider debates, and shaping the ethical direction of society. On the other, there remains a persistent concern with what humanism offers at a more personal level: meaning, belonging, moral orientation and support through the ordinary and extraordinary moments of human life.

Humanism has often resisted fixed definitions of who humanists are and what they should do, yet continues to return to both of these orientations. The future of humanism, it seems, is shaped not by choosing between them, but by the ongoing effort to hold them together – allowing public responsibility and personal significance to inform and strengthen one another.