By Dr Mike Flood and David Warden
Mike and David gave complementary talks at a Dorset Humanists event in January addressing the question “Is Humanism fit for purpose in the 21st century?” They both lead humanist groups which partner with Humanists UK but they are both frustrated by the trajectory of the humanist movement and an apparent gap between rhetoric and reality. Their analyses are not identical, and so we're publishing edited transcripts of both talks below. Why not join the debate in the Comments section?
Since delivering this talk, Mike Flood has heard from Humanists UK’s Chief Executive, Andrew Copson, about his paper “Humanism for the Common Good” (which raises similar issues to those mentioned below) and Mike is expecting feedback shortly, so we’ll keep you posted on developments.
Mike’s talk
I’ve been a humanist for most of my adult life, although I didn’t recognise this until I was 60 – that was after I came across a stall at the Edinburgh Festival run by Humanist Society Scotland and subsequently contacted Humanists UK and set up Milton Keynes Humanists. Discovering humanism has been transformational. I’ve learned so much, met some wonderful people, and made some good friends. But in recent years I’ve grown increasingly concerned about the direction of travel of our movement – or rather the humanist organisations that represent us – and I’d like to share some of my concerns with you this afternoon. I'm speaking in a personal capacity – not as Chair of Milton Keynes Humanists.
I think it’s time for humanist organisations to rethink their priorities and their approach in the light of technological advance and world events. Indeed, this is in line with what Humanists UK’s President Adam Rutherford said in his new year message: “Our work in promoting rational, ethical approaches to life’s most challenging questions has never been more vital. As we stand on the cusp of 2025… The challenges are significant – political polarisation, technological disruption, climate change – but so is our capacity for innovation, empathy, and collective action. Humanism has always been about facing reality with clear eyes and an open mind…” I’m struggling with the “clear eyes and an open mind” bit when it comes to actually addressing major contemporary issues of concern... If only! And may I say I’m not particularly comfortable criticising people or organisations when they are not here to defend themselves. The problem – and it’s one I’ve been wrestling with for some years – is that Humanists UK tends to simply ignore critical comment and shows no interest in what members think – or indeed, in encouraging debate within the movement – which is weird for an organisation that promotes curiosity and freedom of expression. And it pains me to say this. This is what Humanists UK said about Freedom of Expression in a 2019 policy paper: “Freedom of expression has occupied an important part in humanist thinking for centuries and humanist organisations have always been active in campaigns for it.” Maybe, but what about engaging in honest debate about your policies and priorities with your membership?
Perhaps I could make a comment about the state of our movement. I think we’re in serious trouble: many of our groups are struggling… perhaps not Dorset, but others, including my own in Milton Keynes, most certainly are. I think alarm bells should be ringing. But my main concern — and what I’m here to debate — is that Humanists UK is campaigning on a very narrow range of topics primarily concerned with the rights of the non-religious rather than the rights of everyone. Indeed, it seems more interested in celebrating humanist heritage than thinking ahead and providing leadership on how we should address some of the really big moral issues that our society – and the world – is facing. I’m talking about the tsunami of lies and half truths that infects social media and political dialogue – which encourages polarisation and is undermining democracies around the world; the adoption of artificial intelligence (which is transforming so many aspects of our lives and raising profound questions about what it means to be human); and the growing climate crisis. I first lobbied for the Humanists UK’s Board to set up an independent panel of experts to advise on disinformation and AI back in August 2018. They rejected the idea, but this did indirectly lead to my being invited to represent Humanists International at a Dialogue Session of the European Parliament. But that’s another story.
Humanists UK is fighting for human rights, but it is primarily the rights of the non-religious rather than everyone. I believe fighting for the rights of everyone would better reflect what we humanists claim in our founding manifestos and declarations. I also think such a switch would make our movement more attractive to the growing number of people who say they are not religious. Are we really saying that humanists don’t have anything useful to contribute to the debate about the issues I've identified, and not least the threat they pose to human rights, and to democracy and the very existence of sentient life on Earth? And if not, what does that say about humanism and its relevance in the modern world? Indeed, if you follow this "logic", someone with mischievous intent might want to argue that there’s actually no need for humanist organisations at all, as a variety of other organisations are campaigning on the very same issues [as Humanists UK] — and maybe this is why we’re seeing a fall-off in public interest and support for humanism. There are many other groups focused on secularism, human rights and equality, reproductive rights, assisted dying and so on. And let’s not forget organisations concerned with Cosmopolitanism – the idea that all human beings are members of a single community, where people of various ethnic, cultural and/or religious backgrounds live together in peace and interact productively – one might say humanistically [e.g. Global Citizenship Foundation; World Federalist Movement; Democracy Without Borders]. It’s claimed that Humanists UK does not have specialist expertise in the areas of misinformation, AI and climate change. In fact, there’s a great deal of specialist talent within our movement, not least within the ranks of Humanists UK’s 200+ Patrons. Why on Earth, I asked, isn’t Humanists UK making more use of them?
In his 2015 essay The Future of Humanism, Peter Derkx, Emeritus Professor of Humanism and Worldviews at the University of Humanistic Studies, Utrecht, noted that “Where humanists give priority to the little fight humanism will more often be defined in negative terms… Where humanists give priority to the great fight for human rights (for everybody…), 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.” I couldn’t agree more! Humanists UK may want “more non-religious people to live happy, confident, and ethical lives”. I do too, but what I’d like to see is the organisation acknowledging the mess humanity has got itself into – and the damage we’ve done to the planet – and helping prepare local groups (and people more broadly) for the difficult challenges ahead. António Guterres, U.N. Secretary-General, summed up the state of the world in chilling terms in September 2022 in his opening speech to world leaders who had descended on New York for the annual UN General Assembly: “Our world is in big trouble. Divides are growing deeper. Inequalities are growing wider… And challenges are spreading farther… We are gridlocked in colossal global dysfunction. The international community is not ready or willing to tackle the big dramatic challenges of our age. These crises threaten the very future of humanity and the fate of our planet. Our world is in peril ─ and paralysed.”
The World Economic Forum’s 2024 Global Risk Report (see Mike's article in our August 2024 issue) assigns high priority to risks over the next decade, including:
Extreme weather events
Critical change to Earth systems
Misinformation and disinformation
Adverse outcomes of AI technologies
Why aren’t humanist organisations acknowledging the threat and reviewing their campaign priorities and approach accordingly? I’d like to see humanist spokesmen and spokeswomen playing a more prominent role in the national debate about these issues, and acting for everyone in line with the mantra we like to promote: “Think for Yourself. Act for Everyone.” I think words take on a hollow ring when there is little or no follow up, and the campaign focus is clearly elsewhere… on religious education / ending Faith Schools; legal objections to humanist marriages in England and Wales; ending blasphemy legislation in Northern Ireland; constitutional reform / Bishops out of the House of Lords… These are important, but let’s get things in perspective!
Humanists UK is one of 150 humanist groups in over 50 countries that are members or affiliates of Humanists International. Like the other groups in Europe and North America, it’s primarily focused on “campaigning for secularism” and “promoting the humanist life stance”; while in the Global South there are some very brave individuals “fighting for acceptance” and stressing people’s basic right to both freedom of and from religion. Some have paid with their lives. But virtually all of this is being done in the context of the “Little Fight” (lobbying for the legitimate but limited interests of non-believers) and not the “Great Fight” – for human rights for everybody, for peace and for a sustainable economy and a clean and beautiful natural environment. And I think this is a serious mistake. Humanists UK do tackle some Great Fight issues, like assisted dying and the right to abortion, but this is not their main focus. And I don’t know where this drive originates – it’s not written into our various declarations and manifestos. David may have more to say about this.
I do appreciate that there is still much to be done to counter religious privilege and faith schools / religious dogma, but does this REALLY excuse the failure of humanist organisations to address obligations set out in its declarations [such as the Amsterdam Declaration - see box above]? There hasn’t yet been a “Humanist Declaration on AI” but I’d be surprised if it is long in coming, given what Humanists UK’s Director of Communications and Development, Liam Whitton, wrote in this piece on their website in December 2022: “The time has come: humanists must define the values that will underpin our AI future.” We’re still waiting…
Mike's conclusion
In so many areas of concern, humanist organisations seem to be missing in action, preoccupied by the “Little Fight” and humanist heritage rather than fighting for the common good and showing what humanism has to offer. Misinformation and unregulated AI are a threat to everything humanists hold dear: the truth; liberal democracy; and what it means to be human. And climate change threatens our prospects of living well and sustainably on planet Earth.
Mike also spoke about humanist branding. He would like to see humanist organisations revert to the standard 1965 Happy Human design (on the right) to strengthen our internationally-recognisable brand and he suggested a couple of possible USPs (Unique Selling Points) for humanism – see his article in our October issue.
Audience reaction
There was some audience sympathy for what Mike was suggesting but also some pushback. One audience member said that humanism is about telling people how to think, not what to think – getting Humanists UK Patrons to tell ordinary humanists what to think about artificial intelligence and so on could be seen as patronising and paternalistic. Mike responded by saying that we should use the expertise we have in the humanist movement to stimulate informed debate, and to demonstrate that the humanist movement is doing more than just paying lip service to these big questions in grand declarations such as the Reykjavik Declaration on the Climate Change Crisis. He envisages experts in the humanist community advising Humanists UK who could then, for example, issue briefing notes to local humanist groups for discussion. It's fair to say that these questions are often addressed by speakers at Humanists UK Conventions but this does not lead to any concerted action.
Was the humanist movement more ambitious in the 20th century than it is now in the 21st? This collection of papers suggests that it may have been.
From the dust jacket: “How can we develop a new global ethics, a humanism that is truly planetary in focus? How can we build a twenty-first century world community that supersedes economic conflict, war, ecological despoliation… These are some of the questions examined during the 10th World Humanist Congress in 1988 in the USA which brought together the leaders of humanism from 29 countries including the UK, the Netherlands, Norway, France, China, India, Mexico, and the Soviet Union. This compilation of fascinating papers addresses such topics as science, technology, ethics, sex and gender, the ethics of global co-operation, ecology and population, war and peace, moral education and human rights.”
David’s talk
Is humanism fit for purpose in the 21st century? It depends what we mean by the word humanism and what we think its purpose is or should be. I don’t have slides today but here are 12 prompts to generate “virtual slides” in your mind:
The philosopher Socrates – you might be thinking of a white marble statue of a seated philosopher asking profound questions
The Parthenon – this is the famous Greek temple on the Acropolis in Athens, dedicated to Athena, goddess of wisdom, intelligence and rationality
Michelangelo’s David. Most of you will now have an image of a naked young man in your mind! Michelangelo’s David is an icon of Renaissance humanism representing human form and beauty.
The Mona Lisa by Leonardo da Vinci, embodying humanist themes of realism and naturalism
The astronomer Galileo looking at the stars and planets through his telescope
Charles Darwin working out his theory of evolution by natural selection
The novelist George Eliot – her novels reflect a deep humanist perspective valuing reason, compassion, and empathy rather than religious faith – she was an ex-Christian
The Statue of Liberty representing freedom, democracy, enlightenment and the hope of a better life
The Thinker by the French sculptor Rodin
The suffragette Emmeline Pankhurst – votes for women
Martin Luther King – “I have a dream”
Man on the Moon – The famous photograph of Buzz Aldrin taken by Neil Armstrong on the Moon in 1969.
All of these images represent humanism in a variety of ways. They represent the possibility of human perfection, human dignity, human understanding of the cosmos, exploration, the origin of species, the possibilities of living a good life, science, democracy, reason, and liberty. This is what I call the broad canvas of humanism. In many ways we live in an age of humanism. Imperfect and flawed as we are as human beings, we are nevertheless the inheritors of a grand humanist vision of what human life could be like.
But there is of course a narrower canvas of humanism as represented by the humanist movement and this is what we’re really focusing on today. Humanism in the broader sense may well be in crisis in our world today. It’s being assailed on many fronts by fundamentalism and by fanatical ideologies. Can the humanist movement help?
I think this is where Mike’s frustrations lie, with Humanists UK and Humanists International. I’ll remind you at this point that Dorset Humanists is a Partner of Humanists UK and an associate member of Humanists International and we value these partnerships.
But Mike wants these organisations to give due attention to a number of specific existential threats: namely climate change, misinformation, and artificial intelligence. He thinks that these are much more urgent and pressing than relatively minor matters such as abolishing blasphemy laws in Northern Ireland and legalising humanist marriage in England and Wales. Personally, I'm more concerned about civilisational threats than existential threats, but both of them are important.
One of Mike’s arguments is that religious leaders have been engaged with existential concerns such as artificial intelligence for some years while Humanists UK has been “missing in action”. Well let’s take a look at Humanists UK’s ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION adopted in 2011. The aims (or Objects) of the association are as follows, and I’m paraphrasing:
Advancing Humanism understood as a commitment to human wellbeing relying on reason and science
Dissemination of knowledge about humanism mainly through education
Promoting equality and human rights
Engaging in interfaith dialogue
I think the first one is the most relevant to what we’re talking about today. Advancing Humanism understood as a commitment to human wellbeing relying on reason and science. When we look at what Humanists UK is actually focusing on, by looking at their website, what we find is this:
A lot of emphasis on education which is fine
A lot of emphasis on human rights which is fine although at some point we need to talk about human rights overreach [such as foreign criminals who can’t be deported because they have claimed a right to a family life in the UK]
A lot of emphasis on secularism which is OK although secularism is not quite the same thing as humanism and that may be where part of the problem is arising
And there’s a lot of emphasis on what they call “public ethical issues” including the following: assisted dying, reproductive rights, use of human tissue in scientific research, organ donation, homeopathy, animal welfare in relation to halal and kosher slaughter, genital mutilation (both male and female), and ending blasphemy laws.
Now you might think this is a bit of an odd assortment of public ethical issues to focus on. Why not animal welfare in general for example? But there’s a connecting thread which you may have spotted. All of these issues are connected to religion in some way, or to irrational belief.
“We devote much of our time to campaigning and lobbying on behalf of the non-religious... We work for an open society and a secular state with no religious privilege or discrimination based on religion or belief. We also campaign for a rational approach to public ethical issues in order to contribute to a public life where decisions are made on evidence rather than on the basis of irrational beliefs or religious doctrines.” Humanists UK website, indicating the secularist focus of its work.
There are religious arguments against abortion, assisted dying, the use of human tissue in scientific research and so on. And there are religious arguments in favour of infant circumcision and particular methods of animal slaughter. So Humanists UK has limited interest in policy matters unless there is some kind of religious dimension which it can oppose. And this would explain why Humanists UK is not particularly interested in Mike’s concerns, to say nothing of other major issues such as nuclear weapons, cybersecurity, biodiversity, population, pandemics, inequality and so on. It’s only fair, however, to say that Humanists UK have shown some interest in AI and climate change [as acknowledged by Mike].
I do of course understand that Humanists UK has a limited operating budget and that it has to have some way of prioritising what it focuses on. But I think its selection criterion is too restrictive. According to its own objects, Humanism is understood as a commitment to human wellbeing relying on reason and science. There’s no reason why that should be restricted to areas of public concern where humanists can fight with religion. It’s as if Humanists UK is only operating on one wavelength instead of the full spectrum. There are plenty of areas where we could find common cause with religion and that would help with Humanists UK’s Object number four which is to promote dialogue with religion and harmonious cooperation. By focusing on this narrow range of ethical issues, Humanists UK, perhaps inadvertently, is feeding a narrative that humanists are obsessively concerned about religion rather than offering something positive, constructive and unifying. So I do think this is a serious matter and it demands proper attention. In Humanists UK’s defence, they do of course have other areas of activity such as provision of ceremonies and pastoral care which is all to the good. But what Mike is complaining about is this narrow focus when it comes to public ethical issues. The humanist movement needs to engage with the bigger picture in order to give a more balanced impression of what humanism is all about.
I do have a theory as to why Humanists UK is focusing on this narrow range of issues. It may, partly, be about money and fund raising. Campaigning organisations often frame their activities in terms of a battle or a struggle against an external threat because this keeps the money flowing in. So my theory is that Humanists UK selects its activities so as to maximise the sense that it’s fighting a kind of culture war against religion. If my theory is correct, there may be very little chance of changing Humanists UK’s priorities. But, for what it’s worth, I’d like to suggest one possible way forward.
Let’s assume that Humanists UK agrees to set up a Climate Change Group [in addition to Humanist Climate Action which is run by volunteers and has little or no resources], an Artificial Intelligence Group, and a Misinformation Group. Well, there’s a precedent for this kind of thing. At the beginning of the 21st century, Humanists UK hosted a humanist philosophers group and they issued a number of interesting booklets. And we’ve got four of them in our library.
1. The Case Against Religious Schools published in 2001
2. What is Humanism? published in 2002
3. Paternalism re-examined 2003 – bit of a strange topic
4. Thinking about Death 2005
Now these booklets didn’t address existential threats but it seems to me that something like the Humanist Philosophers Group could be a practical model for addressing Mike’s concerns. A group of philosophers and scientists associated with Humanists UK could meet to deliberate about humanist responses to Climate Change, Artificial Intelligence, Misinformation and other threats and they could issue advisory reports to inform humanists about how we might think about such matters. Mike and I are not asking Humanists UK to stop doing what it does. But we’re asking it to operate on a broader canvas in accordance with its own Objects, particularly number one, which is the advancement of humanism understood as a commitment to human wellbeing relying on reason and science. And number four, which is the promotion of understanding between people holding religious and non-religious beliefs so as to advance harmonious cooperation in society.
David’s conclusion
I sympathise with Mike’s perception that there’s a gap between rhetoric and reality in the humanist movement. There’s probably been a shift since the second half of the 20th century when, judging by the content of various humanist manifestos, humanists may have been over-optimistic about the potential of humanism and the humanist movement to effect radical global change to create a better world. Realism is better than delusions of grandeur of course. But I also think there’s an intellectual error at play. Secularism is not the same as humanism, and yet humanist organisations devote much of their time to a kind of secularist clean-up operation, rooting out and eliminating religious influence in public policy wherever they can find it to serve the interests of non-religious people. I have claimed before that this amounts to a de facto privileging of secularism. In a pluralistic, multicultural society it amounts to a kind of secularist supremacy to maintain that religious people may not bring religious arguments to bear on matters of public policy and that, when they do, they should be considered a “threat”. This is not to say that I do not want a secular society. I do. But as a democratic pluralist, I respect the right of religious people to bring their influence to bear on public policy, just as long as that respect is reciprocated. Secularist humanism in this negative sense is operationalised as a kind of perpetual culture war against religion, and this not only works against our aim to cultivate dialogue and good relations with religious people. It also means that we’re mainly operating on one wavelength instead of the full spectrum of humanism.
Humanism is not the mere absence of religion. It’s a positive worldview with a rich heritage which should take its place as one worldview among others, promoting human potential and human achievement independent of religion. We should promote it because we believe in it. We should engage in the “battle of ideas” to win hearts and minds. And we should embrace the full spectrum of what humanism can mean for the whole of humanity. In this way, we can begin to close the gap between rhetoric and reality and reimagine the purpose and scope of humanist organisations.
David also spoke about the importance of building humanist institutions. He wrote about this in the October issue of Humanistically Speaking.
Link
You can watch the video recording here
Comments