“Humanist Manifesto III” is a successor to “Humanist Manifesto” which was originally promulgated in 1933.1
“Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity.”
This, being the first sentence in the Manifesto, appears promising since, surely, a philosophy based upon intellect and rationale will not merely assert but provide evidence and logical premises. For example we are lead to ask, “What is ethical?” and “Why should I be ethical?” and “What is the greater good of humanity?” and “Why is that something to which I ought to aspire?”
The functional premise of the Manifesto reads thusly,
“This document is part of an ongoing effort to manifest in clear and positive terms the conceptual boundaries of Humanism, not what we must believe but a consensus of what we do believe.”
“Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis. Humanists find that science is the best method for determining this knowledge as well as for solving problems and developing beneficial technologies. We also recognize the value of new departures in thought, the arts, and inner experience-each subject to analysis by critical intelligence.”
With this any Christian can agree. This is because they are discussing “the world” which is to say, the material realm. A Christian would state that since God created the material realm it follows logically (it sequits?) that there are material causes for material effects and that we can utilize the various methods and fields of science established largely by theists in order to uncover the manner in which the material realm functions.
Although, it is somewhat mysterious how “inner experience” falls within the realm of “observation, experimentation, and rational analysis_science” or “subject to analysis by critical intelligence.” Is this not what Humanists state against theism-that it is not subject to “observation, experimentation, and rational analysis_science” nor “subject to analysis by critical intelligence”?
If I had to take a guess, I would imagine that some secularists such as Sam Harris (the atheist, Buddhist, mystic who does not like the terms atheist, Buddhist or mystic) seems to think that “inner experience” is merely the stuff of brain gesticulations. In my essay The Sam Harris Trivector I noted that Sam Harris seems to not be studying neuroscience in order to become an unbiased researcher merely interested in uncovering the inner workings of the brain but that he seeks to find evidence for what he already believes to be true.
Next, the Manifesto states:
“Humans are an integral part of nature, the result of unguided evolutionary change. Humanists recognize nature as self-existing. We accept our life as all and enough, distinguishing things as they are from things as we might wish or imagine them to be. We welcome the challenges of the future, and are drawn to and undaunted by the yet to be known.”
I was interested in ascertaining what the reference was to the Manifesto’s and ergo, Humanism’s “conceptual boundaries.” I am yet not quite certain that I have discerned their meaning but it may be at work here. They refer to “unguided evolutionary change” but that it was “unguided” is a materialistic assertion. But what else is to be expected from Humanists? Certainly, but that it is an expected presumption makes it no less than a worldview based presumption.
Nature is referred to as “self-existing” which either means eternal or brought about by its own volition. Neither of which are valid positions nor positions that accord with observation. The reason that nature is not “self-existing” is because within the natural realm everything that begins to exist has a cause. Yet, perhaps they mean that it is a brute fact. Atheism’s ultimate explanation for anything and everything from morality, to humanity, from life, to the Earth’s life sustaining ecosystem, and from the solar system to the universe itself is the same, “It just is. It just happened to happen.”
I found one sentence particularly fascinating and that is, “We accept our life as all and enough, distinguishing things as they are from things as we might wish or imagine them to be.” This is fascinating because some of the reasons that atheism is a consoling delusion are that it offers the delusion of lack of ultimate accountability and the delusion of absolute autonomy. This is relevant because, as materialists, the Humanists claim that this life is all that there is and that, by implication, any expectation of an afterlife is wishful thinking or imagination. However, the Christian would retort that there is more to this life and that the Humanists are wishing and imagining that there is nothing beyond this life.
Regarding ethics, the Manifesto states,
“Ethical values are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience. Humanists ground values in human welfare shaped by human circumstances, interests, and concerns and extended to the global ecosystem and beyond.”
On the surface this is generic enough that it appears unproblematic. Yet, the problem is that it is generic. What if human need determines that a majority population is suffering due to a minority population? What if experience shows that taking land from others ultimately benefits the state, or government?
Well, not so fast because their concept of ethics in qualified thusly,
“We are committed to treating each person as having inherent worth and dignity, and to making informed choices in a context of freedom consonant with responsibility.”
The problem with these Humanist statements is that they are dogmatic assertions-humans have worth and dignity. But we are not told why, nor why we should care, nor why we ought to maintain the worth and dignity of others. Without an ultimate, or absolute, foundation such statements are mere atheistic dogma.
But why are questions such as those which I raised relevant? After all, if someone withholds form punching me on the schnoz do I care why they withheld? Am I not simply pleased enough that my schnoz remains intact? It is tempting to responds with a seemingly obvious “No, I don’t care why, just as long as they did not.”
However, this is the problem with Humanist morality which I will counter distinguish with Christianity:
Christians have good reasons for doing good.Ergo, when a Christian does not do good they are violating the good reasons that they have for doing good.Humanists have no good reasons for doing good.
Ergo, when a Humanists does not do good they are not violating anything.
Following, the Manifesto refers to purpose, meaning and fulfillment:
“Life’s fulfillment emerges from individual participation in the service of humane ideals. We_animate our lives with a deep sense of purpose_Humanists rely on the rich heritage of human culture and the lifestance of Humanism to provide comfort_find meaning in relationships_The joining of individuality with interdependence enriches our lives.”
Another way that atheism is a consoling delusion is that it offers the delusion of subjective meaning in an objectively meaningless existence. Since there is no ultimate, absolute, intrinsic meaning we must make our own and making our own is an admission that there is no ultimate, absolute, intrinsic meaning. But the Manifesto not only mentions or merely recommending the search for meaning but they prescribe how to go about it and where/how to find it.
The Manifesto ends making more of the same great sounding but generic dogmatic assertions as we have already detailed:
“Working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness_to free humanity from the brutalities_minimize the inequities of circumstance and ability_so that as many as possible can enjoy a good life_Thus engaged in the flow of life, we aspire to this vision with the informed conviction that humanity has the ability to progress toward its highest ideals. The responsibility for our lives and the kind of world in which we live is ours and ours alone.”
Nestled within this last set of comments was this statement on diversity:
“Humanists are concerned for the well being of all, are committed to diversity, and respect those of differing yet humane views. We work to uphold the equal enjoyment of human rights and civil liberties in an open, secular society.”
Yet, this appears contradictory since they “are committed to diversity” and yet they seek to do so in a “secular society.” Pertaining to the USA they are not in a secular society. Will they put off their practices as Humanists until the USA becomes secular? Or are they so intolerant of the USA’s non-secular society, a society in which Humanism is free to flourish, that they seek to establish their own secular society?
Overall, “Humanist Manifesto III” consists to generic assertions which are ultimately poetic in form but not functional for society, secular or not.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page.