What’s happened to humanism?
- Mike Flood
- Jan 31
- 28 min read
By Dr Mike Flood
Mike has worked hard to provide a forensically-detailed survey of the health of the humanist movement in the UK and around the world. His findings serve as a sobering reality check. He concludes that humanist organisations are not currently in touch with the ‘spirit of the age’ and that our core concerns look ‘increasingly parochial’ when set against the big ethical and existential challenges of our day.
Mike is Chair of Milton Keynes Humanists and Humanism for the Common Good. He is writing here in a personal capacity.
I have been active in the humanist movement ever since picking up a Humanist Society Scotland flyer at an Edinburgh Festival event almost twenty years ago and realising that I’d been a closet humanist virtually my entire adult life. On my return home – and with help from the British Humanist Association (now known as Humanists UK) – I set up Milton Keynes Humanists and felt proud to be a part of a growing movement. Running a local group proved challenging, but the rewards have been plentiful: learning new things, meeting new people, making new friends, and being invited to special events: I particularly remember helping to inaugurate a granite pillar labelled ‘10 DECEMBER – HUMAN RIGHTS DAY’ at the opening of a wonderful new secular memorial called the Milton Keynes Rose.
Then came Covid and things changed: after the shock of lockdown, attendance at our monthly meetups – which had been averaging a steady twenty people for years – started slowly to decline, despite our innovative ‘Room & Zoom’ format making it easier for people to take part, especially some of our older members. It soon became clear that we were not alone: other groups were struggling, and some folded. Indeed, all the indications were that our movement was in trouble. Today, members of Humanists UK are being bombarded by emails asking for donations and, almost daily, promotional flyers on the group’s Facebook page. But what exactly is ‘the problem’ they’re trying to address?
I had originally thought about writing an article entitled ‘What Future Humanism?’ but I soon realised that to say anything useful I would need to make some heroic assumptions, not only about the pace and direction of global events – which seem to me more chaotic, frightening and unpredictable than at any time in my life – but also about the current state of our movement. And trying to get even basic information about the latter would not be easy. For example, how many members does Humanists UK have? How well are its new branches doing? How many members and associates of Humanists International are still active, given that a number of links on the group’s global map of groups are broken? And I would need to speculate about the issues humanist bodies might choose to prioritise: will they continue to pay lip service to the growing threats to truth, human rights and social justice posed by ‘fake news’, anti-social media and AI bots and ‘slop’ – including threats to science and our knowledge base – or will they double down on fighting for the rights of the non-religious and tackling the injustice of religious privilege? And what about the existential threat posed by climate breakdown?
We are in the midst of a terrifying world crisis, and when humanism has so much to offer it seems humanist organisations have nothing to say. In this article, I explain my concerns and suggested some simple things that might help us get our mojo back. I don’t know whether they will work, but I think we should try.
The British humanist movement
Since its inception in the 1890s, humanism in Britain can hardly be said to have flourished: indeed, according to Professor Callam Brown, for much of its history those who labelled themselves as ‘ethicists’ or ‘humanists’ numbered around 3,500 people – significantly fewer than ‘rationalists’. Indeed, when Hanne Stinson took over as CEO of the British Humanist Association (BHA) in 2001, the organisation was struggling with just 2,500 members.
Things started looking up after 2006 when, under Stinson and, later, Andrew Copson (from 2010), the BHA seemed to find its ‘feet’ and membership of the organisation rose rapidly. Then in 2017, following a major rebranding exercise, the BHA became Humanists UK, with a new logo and livery, and membership continued to build. Local groups also did well and by 2020 are thought to have numbered around a hundred, including thirty or so student secular / atheist / humanist associations at universities and higher education institutions.
The graph above covers this period: it is taken from a talk Callam gave in June 2023 to Reading Humanists and included in The Humanist Movement in Modern Britain, The: A History of Ethicists, Rationalists and Humanists (2023) by Callum G. Brown, David Nash and Charlie Lynch (page 22). There’s another useful illustration depicting the evolution of the BHA / Humanists UK on the Humanist Heritage website (see note 1). Membership was around 25,000 when Covid struck. Following lockdown, a number of local groups closed, including all of the student groups. Today, local groups number around 60, including 19 Humanists UK ‘local groups’, 28 groups that have signed a ‘Partnership Agreement’ with Humanists UK, a handful of independents, and 6 groups in Scotland, including Humanist Society Scotland itself (see note 2). I’ve made some estimates of Humanists UK and Humanist Society Scotland membership below (in the section headed The United Kingdom).
Humanists UK
Over the years, Humanists UK has set up a number of specialist sections including LGBT Humanists, Young Humanists (for people aged 18-35), Defence Humanists, Humanist Teachers, and Faith to Faithless. It also trains celebrants and has been very successful in campaigning for the rights of the non-religious. It now claims to have 150,000 members and supporters.
Around the year 2018, it commissioned a study into the value and viability of setting up local branches. As far as I know, the results of this study were never made public although partner groups did get a glimpse into its recommendations from slides presented at the 2019 Group Representatives Annual Meeting by Humanists UK’s then Director of Community Services, Teddy Prout, who cited the following benefits:
An increase in membership and the ability to engage more people more regularly in the local area
Being less insular as a group
Belonging to a growing movement, with clear objectives and goals at a local and national level
Increased attendance at events… particularly of apostates, 18-35 year olds and members who identify as LGBTQ+
Feeling more ‘professional’ and ‘better governed’
Just two disadvantages were cited: ‘greater lead in time to send emails, advertise events, etc.’ and ‘the increased attention to the group that comes with being a branch [which] brings increased pressure for the volunteers to deliver’. In encouraging us all to sign up, Teddy did note that some of the disadvantages ‘might be attributed to starting up and monitoring the pilot’.
In practice, the project does not appear to have gone entirely smoothly, at least for the first few years. When, in April 2025, I looked at the record, Humanists UK had attempted to set up 22 branches – now called ‘Humanists UK local groups’ – and of these, one had left the scheme and become independent (Chester), and eight appeared to have been discontinued. Admittedly, it was an unfortunate time to be launching such an initiative, given the Covid lockdown. That said, things do seem to have gone somewhat more smoothly in the last year or so although, we know very little about attendance or local leaders’ experience. Whether this model is sustainable, involving managing local groups from London, remains to be seen.
Humanist Society Scotland
Humanist Society Scotland was formed in 1989 from an association of existing local groups. Today it has a Youth Section and humanist groups in Argyll, Dumfries & Galloway, Edinburgh, Fife, and Glasgow. It describes itself as ‘Scotland’s national humanist charity… a member-powered organisation campaigning to make Scotland a more secular, rational, and socially-just country: from assisted dying to LGBT+ rights and much more’. Of particular note is that since 2016, it has been the biggest provider of weddings in Scotland, performing more marriages each year than the Church of Scotland, the Catholic Church, or any other religious group. The society advocates ‘protecting the environment for future generations and championing the use of science to inform Climate Change policy’, although it is not entirely clear what this means in practical terms.
Celebrant networks
In describing the ‘British Humanist Movement’ one can hardly ignore the independent networks of celebrants that offer non-religious weddings, naming ceremonies and funerals, as they also help to promote the humanist cause. Indeed, attending a humanist ceremony seems to be how many people first hear about humanism. Further information is provided below.
Informal humanist networks
Today, there are at least four small humanist networks operating in Britain – three of them, I think it is fair to say, established because of some dissatisfaction with Humanists UK. These initiatives include:
Humanistically Speaking – a free, independent online magazine launched in the UK in January 2020 ‘for humanists, atheists, rationalists, agnostics, sceptics, and everyone who wants to make the world a better place through human effort and endeavour.’ The publication – which is now produced quarterly – sees itself as very much part of the global humanist community. It is overseen by an editorial board of seven active local humanists and has several dozen regular writers across the world who report on a wide range of topics. It has more than 1,000 unique readers per month, mainly in the UK (65%) but with a good global spread and reach. Last year it recorded 12,536 unique readers.
Humanist Groups Working Together (HGWT) was initiated by Bristol Humanists in January 2023 to promote grassroots networking. Today it has 40+ members representing more than 15 local groups and meeting bimonthly on Zoom. One of the really good things to have come out of HGWT is that groups are today talking regularly to Humanists UK and relations seem to have improved as a result. Indeed, a subgroup of HGWT has already helped coordinate feedback on the rewriting of the local group Partnership Agreement and been instrumental in getting the format of the annual meetings changed. But Humanists UK bureaucracy can still appear insensitive. For example, members of HGWT have been incensed by the fact that, when on a number of occasions Humanists UK has been asked if there is a humanist group in their area, they have said ‘no’ when in reality there was a well-established partner group. By ‘no’ they meant there wasn’t a Humanists UK local group.
Humanism for the Common Good (HCG) is a small group of local activists who are concerned about organised humanism’s failure to provide guidance to members on a range of emerging global problems that have profound social, moral and ethical implications, not least ‘fake news’ and misinformation online, unregulated AI, and the climate crisis. The group first met in 2022 (as the Future of Humanism Group) and in early 2023 published a three-page ‘Manifesto’. It is currently exploring what and how humanists might best contribute to tackling the growing threats to humanists’ cherished core values posed by evolving contemporary issues, and how we might do more to reflect what we aspire to in our various Humanist Declarations (see Appendix 1).
Humanist Climate Action (HCA), which Humanists UK describes as: ‘a volunteer-led network of Humanists UK members and supporters committed to redefining lifestyles and campaigning for policies that promote low-carbon, ethical, and sustainable living in the light of the degeneration of the Earth’s climate and biodiversity.’ Today HCA publishes a regular newsletter and has produced a number of useful papers — its existence is recognised in Humanists UK’s most recent strategy paper but that’s all.
I should also mention here Humanists for a Better World, set up in 2012 by a small group of far-sighted local humanists with the broad aim of ‘putting humanist values into action because the whole world is in our hands’. In May 2021, Humanists UK formally incorporated Humanists for a Better World into Humanist Climate Action.
How healthy is the humanist movement?
So, what do we know about the health of the humanist movement in terms of membership, attendance at local events, funding and branding, people’s concerns and disagreements, etc? Here are some observations – and given the lack of data, some assumptions – to help build up a picture.
United Kingdom
To understand how Humanists UK and Humanist Society Scotland are doing, it would be useful to have some basic data on membership and attendance at local events, and the age profile and gender of members. For example, Humanists UK says it has ‘150,000 members and supporters’ but we don’t know what is meant by ‘supporters’. By contrast, Humanist Society Scotland does provide numbers – 18,000 members at the end of 2024 – although you do have to go and look for them in their Annual Report & Accounts. As for figures for attendance at Humanists UK and Humanist Society Scotland local group events, virtually nothing is published. Ditto for what fraction of ‘regulars’ at local events are not signed up members of Humanists UK or Humanist Society Scotland (to avoid double counting).
We can make a rough estimate of Humanists UK’s membership from its subscriptions income, around £985k in 2024. My guesstimate is that this may equate to somewhere between 30,000 and 35,000 members, but if someone knows better, perhaps they could let me know. And then there’s the health of different Sections, such as Humanists UK’s Young Humanists. A colleague informs me that he has not received any event invitations or updates from this group for more than 18 months, and I see that the last posting on the group’s Facebook Page was in February 2024. So we don’t know whether Young Humanists is still operating or viable. And I don’t have any information about LGBT+ Humanists membership and turnout at events. Can anyone help with this?
What is clear, however, is that the number of people signed up to humanist organisations in the UK is small, and this is despite the fact that, as Humanists UK points out, a YouGov poll of British adults in 2021 found that ‘while 7% of the population explicitly identify as non-religious and ‘humanist’, a remarkable 24% hold humanist beliefs’. So shouldn’t we be asking why it is that so many of those who think of themselves as ‘humanists’ are not signed up to Humanists UK, Humanist Society Scotland, or a humanist local groups?
I don’t have reliable figures for the current strength of Humanists UK partner groups or independents. My sense is that attendance at events is significantly down on the pre-Covid period, and that membership is also ageing, with very little ‘new blood’ signing up. Last summer, Humanists UK did send a questionnaire to its partner groups but the results are not yet available. My understanding is that 24 groups took part, and that 29% responded to the question 'How would you rate the direction of travel of your group?’ by ticking ‘Growing’; 54% ticked ‘Stable’; and 16%, ‘Shrinking’. But I am not aware of equivalent figures for Humanists UK local groups, although Humanists UK’s Catriona McLellan did show a slide at last summer’s groups meeting that indicated that average attendance in Q1 of 2025 was 18.5, and in Q2, 15.0. These numbers are rather modest given the size of Humanists UK’s membership pool in the towns and cities served – and the ‘benefits’ Teddy told us about – and the 19% fall in attendance must be a concern. I have asked for figures from previous years but have not received a reply.
Other countries
How does the UK experience compare with that of humanist groups abroad? Looking at some of the groups featured on the Humanists International website, you may (like me) be surprised by their small size. Here are a few examples — and please note I have not attempted to conduct a rigorous survey:
The German Humanist Association has ‘about 20,000 members’ a tiny percentage of the population (~84 m)
The Humanistic Association of the Netherlands has ‘approximately 19,000 members’ (pop: 18m)
Humanisterna (Sweden) has ‘about 4,500 members’ (pop: 10.7 m)
The Union of Rationalist Atheists and Agnostics in Italy, ‘around 3,000 members’ (pop: ~59 m)
To their credit, these groups don’t appear to see the need to talk about ‘members AND supporters’. One organisation that does is the American Humanist Association, and you can see why: it claims to have ‘over 34,000 members and supporters’, and that’s for a country with population of almost 350 million (i.e. 1 in 10,000). With ‘150,000 members’ the Norwegian Humanist Association is clearly an outlier — 3.3% of the population of 5.47 m — but it is a rather special case because it is funded in large part by the government (i.e. public taxes).
International organisations
Membership of Humanists International appears to have fallen in recent years: Wikipedia reports ‘more than 160 members and associates from over 80 countries’ with data it says it ‘retrieved in 2019’. At the end of 2024, Humanists International had 114 members and associates, down from 127 at the same time in 2023. In terms of staffing and turnover Humanists International is much smaller than Humanists UK – 10 members of staff compared to Humanists UK’s 40 – and Humanists International’s income in 2024 was ~£558k, down from ~£1,217k in 2023. For comparison, Humanists UK’s income in 2024 was ~£3,530k. To further confuse matters, Humanists International’s map appears to show 79 members / associates in 49 countries – but the hyperlinks to several of the websites or social media feeds are not working (including all three groups in India). Also, according to their social media feeds, a number of the organisations appear to be barely active. For example, there appear to be 12 member organisations in nine African countries. But of these, eight don’t appear to show any recent postings or very few; four links were not working when I looked; and one member only appears to have an email address.
You may be surprised to learn that there is also a Humanist International (note ‘Humanist’ singular), and possibly two – according to Wikipedia an organisation with that name was founded in Florence in 1989 by ‘over 40 Humanist Parties from around the world’. Its foundational documents include the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a declaration of principles, a thesis and a basis for political action; and then in 1999, the organisation appears to have launched regional bodies of Latin America and Europe, but I don’t know what their status is today – or even if the organisation still exists.
I should also mention here The European Humanist Services Network, which describes itself as ‘a devoted partnership of 20 European member organizations of Humanists International who wish to make humanist services available for everyone who wants them’. There used to be a European Humanist Federation, which ran for a number of years from an office in Brussels, but in December 2022 it entered into administration and its digital assets were granted to Humanists International. Ditto for European Humanist Professionals, which was formed in 1994 to serve ‘the Humanist Celebrant body’s work conducting funerals, weddings, namings and confirmations throughout Europe’.
The humanist brand
The above information – patchy as it is – gives me cause for concern about the current state of our movement; ditto, the fact that a number of national humanist organisations have customised their logos to the point where some bear little or no resemblance to the original ‘happy human’ logo (right). This logo was the winning entry in a competition held back in 1965; and at the time entrants were asked to: ‘create an internationally recognisable symbol of Humanism’. This raises the interesting question of whether the very diversity of logos enhances or detracts from the notion of a ‘global humanist movement’. What do you think?
Unique Selling Point
Then there’s the question of whether the humanist movement has a clear USP (Unique Selling Point), and one that defines humanism in terms of a positive approach to life, and not simply that humanists don’t believe in a ‘god’ or ‘gods’ (i.e. are atheist). As we couldn’t locate one online, Humanists for the Common Good have been reflecting on this suggestion: ‘Being good for goodness’ sake in the one life we have’. Or ‘Humanism is a belief in one life, and goodness for goodness’ sake — possibly the only philosophy that is entirely based on human achievement, resources and knowledge’. It would be good to get readers' thoughts on this too.
Sadly, there is still confusion in some quarters about what humanism is all about, not helped by those who seek to deride or misrepresent the humanist philosophy or approach. I’m reminded of an exchange of correspondence between the eminent Israeli historian Yuval Harari and Andy Norman, an American Professor of Psychology, about how Harari presents humanism in his best-selling book Sapiens. The correspondence appeared in the Free Inquiry (in 2018) with a short accompanying note pointing out that Harari defines ‘humanism’ as a family of ‘religions (that) worship humanity, or more correctly, homo sapiens, and this worship of humanity has made modernity ‘an age of intense religious fervour, unparalleled missionary efforts, and the bloodiest wars of religion in history’. (See note 3 for additional links.)
On a lighter note, when I asked ChatGPT to ‘paint a picture of a typical British humanist’, it generated this image of a serious looking man holding a book. And when I tried again, this time asking the bot to ‘paint a picture of a female humanist’, it came up with a white woman standing in a library or study and also holding a book – albeit one with a rather strange shape! Does this really reflect how we humanists are seen by the public?
My position
I’m not arguing that Humanists UK should abandon its ‘core concerns’: campaigning on religious education and ending faith schools; legal objections to humanist marriages in England & Wales, etc., but I do think these issues are looking increasingly parochial when set against the big ethical issues of our day. Moreover, I struggle to see how focusing on the injustice of religious privilege and the rights of non-believers is in line with the mantra Humanists UK likes to promote: ‘Think for yourself, Act for Everyone’ – or indeed, what’s written in our various Humanist Declarations. Religion is only mentioned once in the modern versions of these important Declarations, and then only in passing – that ‘once’ is in the Statement of Modern Humanism – formerly known as the Amsterdam Declaration.
What’s more, I think it is asking a lot, in the highly complex world in which we live today, for members to know how to ‘Act for Everyone’ in the face of some highly complex social conundrums. In January 2026, Humanists UK posted on Facebook a James Hemming quotation reproduced in The Little Book of Humanism: ‘The meaning of life is to live it, as wholly as we can, as abundantly as we can, as bravely as we can, here and now, sharing the experience with others, caring for others as we care for ourselves, and accepting our responsibility for leaving the world better than we found it.’ And when one follower commented ‘Where do we go from here?’, Humanists UK replied: ‘Only you can answer’. This illustrates one of the problems I’m trying to highlight.
Does Humanists UK really expect members to work out for themselves how they should react to complex issues, such as how to ‘live well’ in our increasingly polarised and dystopian world? Or what individuals might do about the proliferation of ‘fake news’, misinformation and hate speech on social media? Or appreciate (without help) some of the broader social and economic implications of AI? Why isn’t Humanists UK calling on its distinguished Patrons and involving them more in developing humanist thinking on these issues – and showing us all just what humanism has to offer? A number of the individuals concerned are leading authorities in the very fields we’re concerned about (see note 4).
Two Patrons helped in the formulation of the ‘Luxembourg Declaration on Artificial Intelligence and Human Values’ but some of us are still trying to work out what are the broader implications of AI, and not least for what it means to be ‘human’. What is the casual reader to make of what we say in the Amsterdam Declaration about our ‘duty of care to all of humanity including future generations’ and ‘responsibility for the natural world’? Or heeding the call to highlight ‘the need for urgent action’ on the climate change crisis (Reykjavik Declaration)? Or addressing the growing threat to reason and truth posed by disinformation (in the General Assembly Resolution on the Copenhagen Declaration on Democracy)?
What’s ‘the problem’ with humanism?
Given all of the above, I think we humanists have ‘an identity crisis’ but, before explaining what this implies, I’d like to point out that in some respects humanism has perhaps been rather too successful in that a number of humanist values, such as human rights, secularism and rational inquiry, are today accepted as mainstream (at least in the West); and this has led to a dilution of humanism as a distinct identity: if everyone is, to some extent, a ‘humanist’ in their values, does society need a specific humanist movement?
I believe there is little public interest today in humanism because:
It is difficult to define and doesn’t have an obvious USP;
It is not seen as having much, if anything, to offer those who say they are ‘not religious’; and
It doesn’t offer the same depth or comfort that some traditional religious beliefs provide – with the help of their amazing places of worship and wonderful music – in particular, it doesn’t address existential questions concerning the ‘mysteries’ of life and people’s perceived ‘spirituality’ (see note 5). After a promising start, the Sunday Assembly experiment seems to have stalled (see note 6).
Humanist organisations:
Appear to be ‘missing in action’ when it comes to many of the big moral and ethical challenges of our times because they are focused on fighting for the rights of the non-religious (rather than for everyone) and tackling discriminatory religious privilege
Have yet to respond to the challenge of transhumanism (which seeks to transcend human limitations through technology), and rapid advances in AI (which is raising important questions about what it means to be human)
No longer have a distinctive and recognisable brand on the international stage
And some, such as Humanists UK, have a rather top-down management style and do little or nothing to encourage open debate among their members and supporters about these kinds of issues. This is neither healthy nor desirable. I’d love to know when the various humanist organisations last conducted a SWOT Analysis of their operations
‘The humanist movement is capable of crashing unless it stays in touch with the spirit of the age.’ Callum Brown
Conclusion
At the start of this article, I referred to the important contribution that Callam Brown has made to tracing the history of British Humanism. In the talk he gave about his research, he referred to what happened to the movement in the 1970s and 1980s, when membership of the BHA collapsed to a couple of thousand, and he warned his audience: ‘do not for a moment think that growth is inevitable… The movement is capable of crashing unless it stays in touch with the spirit of the age.’ I don’t think that humanist organisations in Britain are in touch with ‘the spirit of the age’ – or indeed, with the spirit of our own Humanist Declarations – and I think we should heed Callam’s warning.
I believe our humanist organisations have the potential to do much more to influence debate on today’s major moral and ethical challenges, using their networks of patrons and contacts to advise on emerging threats and reflect on how these might best be addressed. Humanists International did attempt something like this at a conference in Glasgow in June 2022, when it asked, in view of recent seismic events in the world including the pandemic, the worrying rise in anti-science rhetoric and fake news, and the climate emergency, ‘Is it time for a new Enlightenment?’ and, if so, ‘What role should humanism play?’ Sadly, none of the platform speakers actually addressed the issue in their presentations! (See Humanistically Speaking, August 2022, page 26).
I think it is a tragedy that, when it comes to tackling the growing threats to our value systems, humanist organisations are preoccupied with tackling religious privilege, and the humanist voice is nowhere to be heard. We should be out there fighting tooth and nail for the common good, and then perhaps our fortunes might change.
Appendix 1: Humanism for the Common Good
Over the last 50 years or so humanists have switched their focus of attention as society and social attitudes have evolved: from fighting for acceptance to campaigning for secularism to promoting a lifestance. I think it is now time for those of us who live in the West to go one step further and start fighting for the common good – sometimes dubbed the ‘Great Fight’. This is not a new idea: it was being championed back in the 1960s by the distinguished Dutch humanist Jaap van Praag who, along with Julian Huxley and Harold Blackham, founded the International Humanist & Ethical Union in 1952, which in 2019 changed its name to to Humanists International.
The Great Fight ‘represents the more universal challenges that humanists believe must be overcome for the benefit of all people. This is the work that needs to be done to build a society in which every citizen can make free and informed choices about what makes their lives happy and meaningful, and has the opportunity to live out their lives accordingly. It is a world in which freedom and democracy flourish and authoritarian and totalitarian regimes are a thing of the past. It is a world in which we have minimised the restrictions placed on human beings through poverty, war, and disease.’ By contrast, the ‘Little Fight’... ‘describes the legitimate but limited interests of humanists themselves: campaigning against religious privilege in society and hostility towards the non-religious.’ (Source: Humanists UK, The two fights). As Humanists UK points out, which of the ‘two fights’ is prioritised depends on where one lives: ‘In many parts of the world, the “little fight” is still necessary. Non-religious people still face prejudice and even violence across the globe, and discrimination exists in many forms even in Europe and the US [in schools, hospitals, prisons, politics, and the armed forces]. However, for many humanists, the “great fight” is now where they focus their attention.’ Indeed!
It is important to point out here that a number of the campaigns that Humanists UK and Humanist Society Scotland are currently running – including assisted dying for the terminally ill, women’s reproductive rights, and LGBTQ+ rights and conversion therapy – can be considered part of the Great Fight as well as the Little Fight. Also, expressing concern and saying you support something, such as Humanist Climate Action, or in Humanist Society Scotland’s case, that they’re ‘protecting the environment for future generations and championing the use of science to inform Climate Change policy’ is not the same as allocating a budget and staffing and actively campaigning on an issue!
And for the record, here are some examples of some other successful Great Flight campaigns in Britain:
1911: First ever global conference against racism hosted by the Union of Ethical Societies in London (later known as the BHA / Humanists UK
1967: Abortion generally made legal in Britain, homosexuality decriminalised in England and Wales, death penalty brought to an end, and Family Planning Act makes the pill widely available for the first time
2005: Legal recognition of humanist marriages in Scotland (2017 in Northern Ireland]
2016: The Organ & Tissue Donation Opt Out (Wales, 2016; England followed in 2018; and Northern Ireland in 2022
2017: Campaign against NHS funding for homeopathy, pushing for evidence-based medicine
Appendix 2: Responding to criticism
This paper complements one I wrote in March 2024 entitled ‘Humanism for the Common Good’ in which I made the case for humanist organisations to:
a) set up expert panels to advise on contemporary conundrums that threatened humanist values; and
b) change their campaign focus to concentrate on the common good
I circulated this to Humanists UK and a number of local groups. (Incidentally, my first attempt to get the Humanists UK Board to set up an advisory panel on ‘Disinformation and AI’ was back in 2018 when there was growing concern about the use of social media to spread falsehoods and manipulate public opinion. Sadly, the Board rejected the idea as unnecessary.) One of the criticisms I received in 2024 explained that ‘There are many other organisations working to address the threats to democracy and social coherence posed by misinformation, AI and climate change’, and that Humanists UK ‘is only a small organisation’. Both statements are manifestly true. But the same is also the case for a host of organisations that are fighting for the same things as Humanists UK and Humanist Society Scotland. (Some of the main ones are shown in the graphic below, while others are listed in Note 7.)
People may want to claim that Humanists UK is doing a better job, but that’s another matter… And on the question of size, Humanists UK is not that small, at least by NGO standards: it has a staff of around 40 and a turnover (in 2024) of ~£3,530k – considerably more than Humanist Society Scotland, with £470k. By comparison, the National Secular Society has six staff and an annual turnover of around £340k.
But for me this simply misses the point: are critics really saying that humanists don’t have anything useful to contribute to the debate on the threat to truth, human rights, democracy and the very existence of sentient life on Earth posed by misinformation, AI and climate change? And if so, what message does this convey about humanism and its relevance to life in the 21st century? Indeed, if you follow this ‘logic’ – that others are working on the issue therefore we needn’t – someone with mischievous intent might equally well argue that there’s actually no need for humanist organisations because lots of other groups are on the case!
Humanists UK did respond to my paper with a courteous and friendly note, but made no attempt to explain the intellectual justification for focusing on the rights of the non-religious rather than the common good. It also claimed that if ‘we don’t focus on many of our current campaign priorities, no-one will’ (which is a bit of a stretch). That said, I do have some sympathy with another of Humanist UK’s concerns, which is that ‘people who are primarily concerned about “great fight” issues are more likely to donate instead to organisations focused specifically on those other issues’, but I think this will depend very much on what contribution humanists are seen to make.
Another criticism was that local groups risk being seen to be ‘too politically partisan or attached too closely to single controversial political stances jeopardising their ability to “represent” the broader non-religious community in an inclusive manner as we do at present.’ I do recognise the danger, but can we be clear: I am making the case for a clarification of the nature of the threats to humanist values that we are facing, and the options for addressing them. What action we as individuals choose to take is quite another matter, and something we can very usefully argue about!
Moreover, there’s actually nothing wrong with people being ‘political’, indeed, as the Charity Commission points out: ‘campaigning and political activity can be legitimate and valuable activities for charities to undertake... however, political campaigning, or political activity... must be undertaken by a charity only in the context of supporting the delivery of its charitable purposes. [Indeed there] may be situations where carrying out political activity is the best way for trustees to support the charity’s purposes.’ And if there’s any suggestion that what is proposed is not covered by Humanists UK’s Objects, then Objects can be changed (see Note 8).
Celebrant networks – further information
In England and Wales we have: The Humanist Celebrant Network [which boasts ‘more than 500 Humanist Celebrants’]; ‘The Association of Independent Celebrants’ [‘a Trade Association for professional celebrants across the UK’]; ‘The Fellowship of Professional Celebrants’; and bodies like Celebrant Circle that focus solely on training celebrants. And in Northern Ireland, Humanists NI and Humanist Weddings. No doubt there are others.
North of the border we have: Humanism in Scotland; the Humanist Association Scotland; the Modern Humanist Collective (established as recently as 2024 and hoping ‘to bring a progressive and inclusive approach to Humanism in Scotland’); the Caledonian Humanist Association; and the Fuze Foundation, (dedicated to ‘promoting Humanist values, tackling funeral poverty, and supporting meaningful change across Scotland’, including ‘a wide range of Scottish charities’); and Humanist Fellowship Scotland (which also supports charities).
As already noted, Humanists UK offers non-religious ceremonies: its celebrant map currently identifies 119 individuals who perform weddings throughout England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Channel Islands; 75 who do funerals, and 54, naming ceremonies — in practice many celebrants do all three types. And Humanist Society Scotland lists several dozen celebrants on its website. I don’t have figures for the number of humanist ceremonies conducted by Humanists UK celebrants or those conducted by other groups but it would be interesting to know.
I’m told that that funeral directors seem to prefer Civil Celebrants, many of them ex-registrars, because they are more ‘standard’ than Humanists UK celebrants: they deliver a predictable ceremony, probably written to a proforma, and don't tend to visit the family to personalise the ceremony. I also understand that funeral directors usually recommend celebrants they get on with and will sometimes tell clients who ask for a humanist that there aren't any in the area. Anyone can set up as a celebrant, with or without training.
Endnotes
The Humanists UK graphic does not include the National Secular Society (founded in 1866 by Charles Bradlaugh), nor does it mention the even earlier work of Robert Owen; nor does it reference local groups, not least the trailblazing Leicester Secular Society founded in 1851. Owen was an influential industrialist and philanthropist whose humanist approach to life and social reform influenced countless others during his lifetime and after his death, including George Holyoake's secular movement and co-operative movement. As early as 1817, Owen had publicly claimed that all religions were false, and he doubtless influenced the Rational Society, which built a number of ‘Halls of Science’ which provided a base for ‘social missionaries’ and cultural and leisure activities for members. By 1840, there were over 60 branches in operation, working ‘to cultivate kindly feeling and social fellowship among all classes’ and promoting ‘Owenite rites for baptisms, marriages, and funerals’.
As of now (Jan 2026) Humanists UK has local groups in Leeds, Sheffield, Liverpool, York, Isle of Wight, Exeter, Leicester, Cornwall, Oxford, Derby, Haywards Heath, Nottingham, North Staffs, Northampton, Bangor (Northern Ireland), Dyneiddwyr Eryri, Maldon, Worcester and Portsmouth. Some of these are new, others are pre-existing groups that chose to sign up and effectively hand over control to Humanists UK. Partner groups are shown on Humanists UK’s map, but not independent local groups, which include: Chester Humanists, Hastings Humanists, North Yorkshire Humanists and Wrexham Humanists.
Those with a particular interested in the criticism of humanism might like to read this recent piece entitled ‘The Humanistic Failure’ — and possibly a paper I wrote in 2015 entitled: ‘Humanism: an insane form of thinking that invades the human mind’.
Humanists UK Patrons on misinformation include: Matthew d’Ancona (‘Post Truth: The New War on Truth’); Julian Baggini (‘A Short History of Truth’); Jim Al Khalili; Martin Poulter (Director of Wikimedia UK who speaks on critical thinking). On AI: there is Susie Alegre (‘Human Rights, Robot Wrongs: Being Human in the Age of AI’); Baroness Joan Bakewell (former member of the HoL Select Committee on AI); Kate Devlin (Professor of AI & Society, King's College London). And on Climate Change / Sustainable Development we have: Siân Berry MP (former co-leader of the Green Party); Sarah Bridle (Professor in Food Climate & Society, University of York); Colin Challen (climate activist & former MP, who founded the All Party Parliamentary Group on Climate Change); Helen Czerski (Professor of Science & Society, UCL); Prof Anne Glover (former Chief Scientific Adviser to the European Commission); Sir David King (former Chief Scientist); Mark Maslin (Professor of Earth System Science at UCL); Alice Roberts (Professor of Public Engagement in Science, University of Birmingham). I suspect this is the tip of a rather large iceberg when it comes to specialist talent within our movement.
My experience is that most humanists do have a strong spiritual side – see Jeremy Rodell’s insightful paper on the subject, entitled ‘Humanism and Spirituality’. Jeremy notes that ‘Humanists may prefer not to use the S word if there’s another way of conveying what we mean, maybe aesthetic awareness, sense of transcendence, love of nature, or simply love. On the other hand, we shouldn’t let the baggage of religious spirituality put us off if it’s the best word available, or if we need to reclaim it from those who seek to use it to exclude the non-religious. Whatever terms we use, spiritual experience, and awareness of our own and others’ profound inner lives, are important parts of what it means to be human — and a humanist. And while this will remain an area of difference between humanists and the religious, we can also recognise it as an important area of common ground.’ For what it’s worth, I strongly recommend aweism!
A map of Sunday Assemblies worldwide shows a small scattering in the UK and North America (and one in The Netherlands); and of the 10 shown in England and Scotland, one is 'started' and another 'dormant'.
There are groups focused on Secularism, Human Rights & Equality (National Secular Society, Human Rights Watch; Amnesty International; Human Rights Foundation; Open Society Foundation; and many other NGOs too numerous to mention); Freedom of Speech (Article 19; Index on Censorship; Amnesty International; English PEN); Sexual & Reproductive Rights (International Planned Parenthood Association; Brook; Am.Int.; ActionAid; Abortion Rights UK; The Fawcett Society; Stonewall; The Human Dignity Trust; WHO; etc.); Religious Education & Collective Worship (Religious Education Council; Religion Media Centre); Faith Schools (NSS); Blasphemy — (End Blasphemy Laws; NSS); Assisted Dying (Dignity in Dying; The Assisted Dying Coalition; My Death, My Decision); even Teaching Creationism in Schools (Creationism In Schools Isn't Science; The British Centre for Science Education; Richard Dawkins Foundation). The only campaign that I’m not sure anyone else is working on is the one to make humanist marriages in England and Wales legally recognised!
The BHA changed its Objects in 2011, when it introduced Object 4.1.3: ‘the promotion of equality and non-discrimination and the protection of human rights as defined in international instruments to which the United Kingdom is party, in each case in particular as relates to religion and belief’. Prior to this, the BHA’s Objects simply read: ‘The mental and moral improvement of the human race by means of the advancement of Humanism, that is to say, the moral and social development of the community free from theistic or dogmatic beliefs and doctrines; and the advancement of education and in particular the study of Humanism and the dissemination of its principles.’ Incidentally, Humanist Society Scotland’s Objects appear to be rather more accommodating than Humanists UK’s and they include a vision of Scotland in which ‘individual freedom is balanced with social responsibility and a duty of care for future generations’.
Thumbnail image is a photo taken at the World Humanist Congress in Copenhagen in the summer of 2023. Photo by David Warden.
Comments