Is humanism fit for purpose in the 21st century? A response to Mike Flood and an eleven-point blueprint for the future

By David Warden

This article is, in part, a response to Is humanism fit for purpose in the 21st century? – an article by Mike Flood also published this month in Humanistically Speaking. it also tries to break new ground in suggesting how we might reimagine humanism for the future. David is Editor of Humanistically Speaking and Chairman of Dorset Humanists.

Is humanism fit for purpose in the 21st century? It depends what its purpose is and what we mean by “humanism”. “Humanism” is a portmanteau term which combines ideas and beliefs about human origins, human dignity, human rights, and human potential – all of which have persisted in human culture for centuries if not millennia. A great deal of secular art, architecture, music, literature, theatre and so on is humanist in this sense. From this point of view, humanism as a frame of reference has a certain degree of “cultural fitness”. But what we’re really talking about in this article is humanist organisations such as Humanists UK and Humanists International. Whether they are “fit for purpose” depends on what purposes they have, or what purposes humanists think they should have.

Jaap van Praag, an eminent Dutch humanist who, in 1952, was one of the founders of Humanists International (then known as the International Humanist and Ethical Union), introduced the metaphor of the “Little Fight” and the “Great Fight”. The “Little Fight” refers to the pursuit of aims which are to the benefit of humanists themselves including defending their right to exist, the pursuit of secularism in matters of state, and promotion of the humanist lifestance, while the “Great Fight” refers to the pursuit of aims which are to the benefit of humanity in general. Of course, the boundary between “Great Fight” and “Little Fight” issues is not watertight. The pursuit of state secularism for example, and public policy liberalisation on issues such as abortion and assisted dying should benefit everyone, not just humanists. However, the “Great Fight” was perhaps best expressed in Humanist Manifesto II, written by Paul Kurtz and Edwin H. Wilson and published by the American Humanist Association in 1973. This extract gives a flavour of their thinking:  

“The next century can be and should be the humanistic century. Dramatic scientific, technological, and ever-accelerating social and political changes crowd our awareness. We have virtually conquered the planet, explored the moon, overcome the natural limits of travel and communication; we stand at the dawn of a new age, ready to move farther into space and perhaps inhabit other planets. Using technology wisely, we can control our environment, conquer poverty, markedly reduce disease, extend our life-span, significantly modify our behavior, alter the course of human evolution and cultural development, unlock vast new powers, and provide humankind with unparalleled opportunity for achieving an abundant and meaningful life.

The future is, however, filled with dangers. In learning to apply the scientific method to nature and human life, we have opened the door to ecological damage, over-population, dehumanizing institutions, totalitarian repression, and nuclear and bio-chemical disaster. Faced with apocalyptic prophesies and doomsday scenarios, many flee in despair from reason and embrace irrational cults and theologies of withdrawal and retreat.

Humanity, to survive, requires bold and daring measures. We need to extend the uses of scientific method, not renounce them, to fuse reason with compassion in order to build constructive social and moral values. Confronted by many possible futures, we must decide which to pursue. The ultimate goal should be the fulfillment of the potential for growth in each human personality – not for the favored few, but for all of humankind. Only a shared world and global measures will suffice.

A humanist outlook will tap the creativity of each human being and provide the vision and courage for us to work together. This outlook emphasizes the role human beings can play in their own spheres of action. The decades ahead call for dedicated, clear-minded men and women able to marshal the will, intelligence, and cooperative skills for shaping a desirable future. Humanism can provide the purpose and inspiration that so many seek; it can give personal meaning and significance to human life.”

Mike Flood’s article Is humanism fit for purpose in the 21st century? is in the tradition of “Great Fight” thinking. I've witnessed Mike coming up against quite a bit of resistance in the humanist community when he argues his case. Many humanists think that we should stick to the “Little Fights” because this is our “niche” and because “Great Fights” are being fought elsewhere. Whether you agree with Mike or with the “Little Fighters”, it’s an important debate for us to have.

My own view is that, in addition to the pursuit of a secular or pluralistic society and tackling global problems, humanism should, over the last 150 years, have been building institutions such as leadership training colleges and humanist societies with a visible presence in every town and city. Humanism is sold short if it is presented as the mere absence of religion with a thin veneer of humanist identity based on “kindness”, “shared values” and being “good without God”. Humanism, as the Amsterdam Declaration has declared since 1952, is an alternative to dogmatic religion yet it shares some features in common with religion. It has a theory of the cosmos and human origins, it has a body of literature both ancient and modern, and it has an ethos about how to live a fully human life. It’s possible of course to be an unconnected humanist but, if you wish to cultivate a deep and confident humanist identity, you need to be connected to humanist communities and societies and you need to study and apply humanist ideas and principles in your life. You wouldn’t get many Buddhists saying that they can be confident Buddhists without some sense of belonging and regular practice of Buddhism. Why should humanism be any different?

The tragedy of humanism is that, because most of us worship at the shrine of liberal individualism and secular neutrality, and we do not want to be herded into any kind of organisational structure, we have failed to build anything substantial out of the inspiring idea of humanism which germinated in the mid-19th century. Humanist groups come and go because they are not professionally led and they do not accumulate any financial or real estate capital, and national and international humanist organisations operate as lobbying organisations rather than institutions. The result of our failure is that, today, more people have heard of Scientology and Jehovah’s Witnesses than humanism.

Humanists UK is an effective organisation but it has limited aims and ambitions; it falls short of the kind of national humanist institution I believe we need. It operates out of rented offices rather than an impressive building in central London. The only piece of humanist real estate in central London is Conway Ethical Society, which lives off its religious inheritance from the 19th century. Unlike archbishops and chief rabbis, Presidents of Humanists UK are not consulted on the great moral issues of the day because they are only in post for a few years and usually known for their primary occupation, such as comedy or science. No wonder so few people have heard of us. We’ve made ourselves invisible and, what’s more, we deliberately chose this destiny because we didn’t really believe in humanism as an alternative to dogmatic religion. We thought the absence of religion would be good enough and that it would usher in an era of “shared values” and everyone living happily together. But this was always a Lennonist fantasy (“Imagine no religion – it’s easy if you try” from the song Imagine released in 1971). Partly because of our failure, millions of people today are unsure what to believe. They no longer belong to the religions of their ancestors. They have been uprooted and they are expected to compete in a ruthlessly competitive globalised economy. They may be searching for wisdom, for guidance, for a sense of belonging and meaning. And we offer them almost nothing. Many are seduced by pseudoscientific nonsense and fanatical secular religions.

I believe that humanism today is barely fit for purpose for the 21st century, let alone the centuries we hope will follow, because of its almost complete sell-out to liberal individualism and secular neutrality. But it’s never too late to reimagine humanism. I’ll say more at the end of this article about what we can do but it’s time now to look at Mike Flood’s article.

Paul Kurtz, Levi Fragell, Rob Tielman and many other well-known humanists wrote about "Humanism in the 21st Century" in 1989. See further reading section at the end of this article.

Summary of Mike Flood’s argument

Is humanism fit for purpose in the 21st century? claims that a number of emerging contemporary issues such as social media, AI, climate change, international disorder, disinformation and so on pose a direct threat to the things that humanists hold dear: truth, rights, dignity and wellbeing, liberal democracy, what it means to be human, living sustainably on planet Earth, and human happiness and wellbeing. This reality is making it difficult for humans to live happy and confident lives as we contemplate the prospect of a dangerous and uncertain future, and the article calls for humanist organisations to recognise this reality and review their campaign priorities accordingly. The discussion is framed in terms of Jaap van Praag’s metaphor of the “Great Fight” which is taken to mean tackling universal challenges for the benefit of everyone as opposed to the “Little Fight” which entails lobbying for the legitimate but limited interests of non-believers. Citing various humanist declarations, including those on climate change and democracy which make little to no mention of religion, Mike asks why humanists are so “fixated” on these limited interests. He appreciates that there is still much to be done to counter religious privilege and indoctrination of the young but argues that this does not excuse the failure of humanist organisations to tackle the bigger issues. Merely paying lip service to them reflects badly on humanism. He observes that humanist organisations seem to be “missing in action”, preoccupied by the “Little Fight” and celebrating humanist heritage rather than fighting for the common good and showing what humanism has to offer. Assuming that humanism must have something useful to contribute, he challenges the complacent view that there is no need for humanists to tackle these bigger issues because other organisations are doing so. Mike is yet to hear a convincing argument why humanist organisations won’t take on the “Great Fight”. He believes that giving more attention to how we can give people hope, and the means and the confidence to challenge the threats we face, would help demonstrate humanism’s relevance and potential. He argues that this change in approach would be well-received, especially by younger generations who want less talk and more action, and humanism would thereby attract more interest and attention.

Mike’s article critiques Humanist International’s Minimum Statement on Humanism (adopted in 1996) and suggests a couple of updates with a greater focus on planetary limits and future generations. He also suggests a couple of USPs for humanism: “Striving for a fairer, more compassionate world in the one life we have” and “Being good for goodness’ sake in the one life we have”, and he recommends that the Happy Human logo should be standardised globally. As in previous articles, he calls for Humanists UK to partner with special interest groups with relevant skills and expertise and to call on its Patrons with specialist knowledge to provide guidance and support.

Engaging young people for humanism

In a Humanist Groups Working Together online meeting held on 17th August 2024, Christian Jensen from Central London Humanists shared a slide presentation entitled Engaging Young People for Humanism by Nicole Shasha from Leicester Humanists for the European Humanist Services Network. I was expecting this presentation to lend support to Mike Flood’s argument. In essence, however, it did the opposite by doubling down on the “Little Fight” approach, suggesting ways to persuade young people to get involved in “specifically humanist campaigns”. The first slide claimed that “Young people largely do not believe that the rights of the non-religious are an important thing to focus on in the UK” and that “Public focus is largely on other issues such as the climate crisis”. The slide challenged this view by claiming that countries can and do backslide on freedom of belief and that we should care about humanist issues in other countries, such as the case of Mubarak Bala. It concluded that the solution is to “make sure young people know what humanism is and why fighting for issues on a humanist and secular front is so important”. A later slide suggested that “LGBT+ rights and environmental activism” can be “avenues where we attract already [politically] active young people to specifically humanist campaigns… [such as] faith schools, bishops in the House of Lords, assisted dying [and reproductive rights]”. Another slide suggested that humanism can be a refuge for those who are frustrated by such things as misinformation and conspiracy theories, helping to combat them by critical thinking and evidence. The slide show itself did not present evidence to support its claims but I include it here as an example of what may be characterised as “Little Fight” thinking.

Responding to the issues raised by Mike Flood

Climate change, AI and misinformation are just three issues among many which may be seen as existential threats to humanity. Others include nuclear weapons, overpopulation or even population collapse, pandemics, cybersecurity threats, bioengineering risks, financial collapse triggered by unsustainable debt, mass migration induced by conflict and climate change, natural disasters and so on (see end note). Numerous organisations and bodies are tasked with assessing, addressing, and mitigating such existential threats and global challenges. They often operate at national and international levels, and they may be governmental, intergovernmental, non-governmental, or research-focused. They include the UN and its specialised agencies such as the IPCC and WHO, the International Atomic Energy Agency and NATO, which addresses security threats, including cyber threats. There are also think tanks and research institutes such as the Future of Humanity Institute at the University of Oxford which focuses on existential risks, including AI, biotechnology, and global catastrophic risks and the Centre for the Study of Existential Risk at the University of Cambridge which studies global catastrophic risks, including AI, synthetic biology, and environmental change, the International Panel on Artificial Intelligence, which is an international effort to support and guide the responsible development and deployment of AI technologies, and the International Union for Conservation of Nature, which focuses on biodiversity conservation and natural resource management.

It could be argued that all such bodies are implicitly humanist in that they are tackling threats to humanity on the basis of reason, science, and sustainability. Their existence could induce complacency in civil society organisations, institutions, and associations that operate independently of the government such as NGOs, community groups, trade unions, and faith-based organisations. Civil society organisations can, however, make significant and meaningful contributions to addressing global challenges by educating their members and the broader community about global issues such as climate change. They can organise workshops, seminars, and discussion groups to increase understanding and encourage action. By organising campaigns, petitions, and peaceful protests, such organisations can influence public opinion and put pressure on policymakers to address critical issues. Many churches and other groups are already involved in environmental stewardship initiatives, such as planting trees, reducing waste, and promoting sustainable practices within their communities. These actions, while local, contribute to the global effort to combat climate change. They often provide direct support to those affected by crises, such as refugees, victims of natural disasters, and those living in poverty. They can offer food, shelter, medical care, and other essential services, sometimes even reaching areas where government aid is less effective. And many such organisations engage in lobbying efforts to influence public policy. They can advocate policies that address climate change, social justice, public health, and other critical issues. By partnering with governments, NGOs, and international bodies, they can help implement policies and programmes at grassroots level. By engaging young people in these efforts, they can foster a new generation of leaders and innovators who are committed to solving global problems. And civil society organisations are often well-positioned to make meaningful contributions to addressing these problems through direct action, community mobilisation, and policy advocacy. They can be powerful agents of change by leveraging their networks, resources, and moral authority to inspire and implement practical solutions that address the pressing issues facing humanity today.

Religions are involved in “Great Fight” issues

Specific examples include the Global Catholic Climate Movement, a network of over 900 Catholic organisations that collaborate on environmental issues, particularly climate change. It promotes the message of Pope Francis’s encyclical Laudato si’, which calls for urgent action to protect the environment. In 2020, the Vatican launched the ‘Rome Call for AI Ethics’, a document that emphasises the ethical use of AI. It was developed by the Pontifical Academy for Life in collaboration with major tech companies like IBM and Microsoft. The document outlines principles such as transparency, inclusion, impartiality, reliability, security, and privacy. The Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention has also addressed the ethical implications of AI from a Christian perspective. In 2019, they released a statement titled ‘Artificial Intelligence: An Evangelical Statement of Principles’, which provides a framework for thinking about AI through the lens of Christian ethics. The statement emphasises the need to use AI in ways that respect human dignity, promote justice, and protect privacy. Scholars in the Muslim world are increasingly engaging with the ethical implications of AI, particularly through the lens of Islamic teachings. Issues such as justice, fairness, and the preservation of human dignity are central concerns. Conferences and discussions have been held on how Islamic ethics can guide the development and use of AI. The Shalom Hartman Institute and other Jewish think tanks have begun exploring the ethical implications of AI, particularly concerning issues like privacy, the sanctity of human life, and social justice. Jewish ethical thought, rooted in concepts like tikkun olam (repairing the world), informs their approach to AI. The Hindu American Foundation has also begun to engage with the ethical implications of AI, particularly how it aligns with Hindu values like ahimsa (non-violence) and dharma (moral and ethical duties). These examples show that there are very good precedents for belief organisations to get involved in global issues such as climate change and the implications of AI.  

What do humanist organisations do to address global issues?

We should recognise what is done by humanist organisations with resources far more limited than, say, the Catholic Church. For example, the World Humanist Congress in Copenhagen 2023 focused on threats to democracy, raising the awareness of hundreds of delegates from many different countries. The theme for the World Humanist Congress 2026, planned to take place in Washington, DC, is ‘Forging a Humanist Future: Science, Ethics, and Action’. This theme focuses on addressing contemporary global challenges through the lens of humanist values, emphasising the integration of scientific understanding, ethical considerations, and proactive engagement in shaping a better future for humanity. The 2011 World Humanist Congress in Oslo explored the relationship between humanism and peace, examining how humanist principles can contribute to conflict resolution, reconciliation, and global peace efforts – and in 2002, the World Humanist Congress in the Netherlands addressed the global responsibilities of humanists, including issues related to social justice, environmental sustainability, and global governance. Further back in history, the Russell-Einstein Manifesto of 1955 urged world leaders to seek peaceful solutions and avoid the catastrophic consequences of nuclear war. Bertrand Russell was a prominent philosopher and supporter of the British Humanist Association and Albert Einstein is often considered to be a humanist. More recently, as acknowledged by Mike Flood in his article for this magazine in August, Humanist Society Scotland has participated in campaigns and initiatives aimed at addressing climate change and promoting environmental sustainability. The American Humanist Association (AHA) supports and promotes policies that address climate change, working with other organisations to push for sustainable practices and legislation. The AHA has spoken out on issues such as global poverty, human rights abuses, and the refugee crisis, urging the international community to take action. In the UK, Humanist Climate Action, a volunteer-led network of Humanists UK members and supporters, is a member of The Climate Coalition, which claims a supporter base of 20 million. And Humanist Global Charity based in Washington DC mobilises resources for disaster relief efforts worldwide, providing aid to those affected by natural disasters. During the COVID-19 pandemic, they provided support to vulnerable communities worldwide, including funding for healthcare and food distribution.

These examples show that humanists and humanist organisations are not in principle averse to engaging in Jaap van Praag’s “Great Fight”, but it’s true that Humanists UK’s priorities appear to be aimed at “Little Fight” issues. In its own words, “We devote much of our time to campaigning and lobbying on behalf of the non-religious” and “We classify our public affairs work as belonging to one of four areas: schools and education, human rights and equality, secularism, and public ethical issues such as assisted dying”. Perhaps the problem, if there is one, is less about persuading humanist organisations to get involved in “Great Fight” issues and more to do with striking the right balance between competing concerns and priorities at different scales. There are many problems in the world, from blasphemy laws to climate change, and what humanist organisations choose to focus on will be determined by geography, politics, resources, and organisational habits and leadership. Mike Flood is a disruptor (in a good sense) and he’s arguing, in effect, that greater priority and visibility should be given to “Great Fight” concerns, not only in order to give humanism a broader appeal and more relevance, but because a myopic focus on “Little Fight” issues makes humanism look as though it’s “missing in action” in relation to the great issues of the day.

As noted earlier, I’ve heard individual humanists argue against Mike, stating that Humanists UK should stick to the knitting and remain focused on “Little Fight” concerns such as humanist marriage and bishops in the House of Lords. I think this indicates two things: a general lack of awareness that humanism does address “Great Fight” concerns from time to time, and the relatively low priority given to such concerns. So it’s not a question of whether we should, but a question of how to get the balance right. Seeing the problem this way may help us to get beyond an often fruitless binary argument – “Yes we should/No we shouldn’t” – towards a more nuanced discussion about how to get the right balance between many competing priorities for humanists. Mike’s article should be welcomed as a stimulus to this discussion. 

Do we need a humanist USP and a New Minimum Statement on Humanism?

Does humanism have a "unique selling point" and do we need a New Minimum Statement on Humanism? Before attempting to answer these questions, we need to ensure that we have a mature grasp of the breadth and depth of what humanism is. Jaap van Praag’s “Great Fight” and “Little Fight” metaphor does not encapsulate the totality of what we mean by humanism. Humanism is not just about political action and solving the world’s problems. It’s also about wisdom and how to live a good and flourishing life even in the midst of global and existential problems, which will always be with us to some degree. Mike’s USP suggestions – “Striving for a fairer, more compassionate world in the one life we have” and “Being good for goodness’ sake in the one life we have” – tend to give the impression that humanism can be reduced to political and ethical activism. It’s much more than that, and his 100-word “Minimum Statement on Humanism” is better at capturing the breadth and depth of humanism. I do not want to attempt a detailed critique of his suggestion in this article. But I will offer a few concluding remarks.

Framing humanism as a perpetual “fight” – whether Great or Little – is debilitating and bad for the human spirit. It also pits humanism against a whole host of so-called “bad actors” – framing humanism as engaged in warfare rather than as an uplifting movement inspired by our common humanity. There is a time to fight but there’s also a time to live. I would argue that humanism’s USP is clarity about the human situation, engaging with reason and science rather than religion and revelation, and wisdom about how we can live happy and fulfilling lives. The word “wisdom”, meaning knowledge, learning, or the capacity to make sound judgements, has a common root with the Sanskrit word “veda”, meaning knowledge, as in the sacred Hindu texts, the Vedas. Humanists often say we do not have any sacred texts but we do have a body of wisdom texts to inspire us. Each of us may make a different selection but Marcus Aurelius’ Meditations and John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty could be on the list. We need to think in terms of humanitas – a Latin word which refers to the cultivation of the mind and character through education. We should be doing this in humanist communities and also in humanist schools. Many of us support humanist schools in Uganda but we are squeamish about founding humanist schools in the UK and other Western countries because we think that secular neutrality is good enough. It often isn’t. We need to believe positively in humanism – not merely in the absence of religion which can leave a moral and spiritual vacuum, as is becoming increasingly evident in our fractious, decaying and unhappy societies. 

My frustration with the humanist movement today is its unquestioning worship at the shrine of liberal individualism and its relative lack of interest in building humanist communities and humanist institutions. If we had such institutions, we could grow thousands of well-informed and energetic humanists. We will never compete with Christianity or Islam or Buddhism until we understand the importance of this. Humanists UK has an income in excess of £3m and Humanists International has an annual income of less than £1m. These are trivial amounts for a movement which should be able to compete on the world stage with the world’s great faiths. There are at least a billion non-believers out there for the taking. Yet 150 years after Felix Adler launched his humanistic Ethical Culture movement, the most common response to hearing the word “humanism” today is “What’s that?” So in answer to Mike’s question “Is humanism fit for purpose in the 21st century?” it seems pretty clear to me that it’s not. We need to have some honest conversations about the underlying reasons for this and what we can do about it, and we need more disruptors like Mike Flood to help us.

I'd like to suggest a number of things we could do in order to address this reality. Not all humanists will agree, of course, and my ideas are offered as discussion starters.

Eleven things we could do – a blueprint

1. If humanism is to build a viable future in the coming centuries, it needs a network of “disruptor humanists” and humanist intellectuals to create inspiring visions and thick descriptions of what a “humanism of the future” could look like.

2. Informal humanist groups need to be reimagined as humanist societies with professional paid leaders and financial income and capital. Members need to give substantial amounts to support their society. They should aspire to have their own premises which, ideally, should be architecturally beautiful and have a visual impact in towns and cities. The Ethical Society of St Louis is a living example. Critics may label this as a form of “congregational or religious humanism” that was tried and rejected by humanists in the UK by about 1950. I think the failure of earlier iterations, such as Stanton Coit’s Ethical Church in Bayswater, is that they tended to mimic religion to the point of parody. We do not have to make the same mistakes. A humanist society won’t be to everyone’s taste but it doesn’t have to be. If some people would rather devote themselves to their local orchestra or football team there’s no harm in that.

3. National humanist organisations need to build training colleges for humanist leaders. The Humanistic University in Utrecht is one such model. This university, which receives funding from the Dutch government, is a unique academic institution dedicated to the study and promotion of humanism. It is the only university in the world that specifically focuses on humanistic studies, integrating philosophy, social sciences, and humanities to explore human values, ethics, and the meaning of life from a humanist perspective. The university offers bachelor’s, master’s, and doctoral programmes in humanistic studies, care ethics, and other related fields. The curriculum combines philosophical reflection with practical application, addressing contemporary societal issues from a humanistic viewpoint. We need universities like this in every country, or at least professorships in humanist studies. The Institute for Humanist Studies (IHS) based in Washington, D.C. is another model. The IHS doesn’t operate as a traditional bricks-and-mortar institution with a dedicated physical building like a university. Instead, it functions primarily as a virtual and decentralised entity, focusing on research, advocacy, and educational initiatives within the humanist movement.

4. The leaders of humanist societies should combine both teaching and pastoral roles and they should be trained to conduct humanist ceremonies. We should end the current practice of humanist celebrants being disconnected from humanist societies. Humanist leaders should probably be called “Leader” (as in US Ethical Societies) rather than “Chairman” or “President”.

5. Humanist societies should offer humanist coming-of-age courses and ceremonies for young people. As an example, Finland offers the week-long “Prometheus Camp”, which serves as a secular alternative to religious confirmation. It’s aimed at young people around the age of 15 and focuses on discussions about ethics, society, and humanism. There are similar initiatives in Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Germany and Iceland.

6. The activities of humanist societies will inevitably mimic religious gatherings to some extent while remaining secular and humanist in their foundational beliefs and practices. Sunday Assembly is one such model. Humanist societies should include regular assemblies where the trained leader provides a lesson or reflection from a humanist text. Live music including a choir would be an excellent addition but if no musicians are available then perhaps some recorded music could be played. The assembly should include socialising over coffee or tea. Members should try to turn up on a regular basis: societies do not work if members are absent. We should end the model of humanist groups having an endless succession of guest speakers on disconnected topics, because this encourages members to turn up when they feel like it, rather than being committed to the society, and a few bad speakers can put people off for good.

7. Rather than using parochial place names such as “Dorset”, humanist societies could adopt more inspiring names for themselves such as “One Life Humanists”, “Lighthouse Humanists”, “Compass Humanists”, or “Harbour Humanists”.  Or something more academic like “Humanist Academy”. Existing groups could retain their original name for legal or tax purposes and adopt a new name for marketing and brand image.

8. The most successful humanist organisations in Europe are those which are part funded by the state, such as Norway and Belgium. We need to cure ourselves of our ideological and self-defeating opposition to state support for religions and worldviews. Religions and worldviews, as long as they do not become totalitarian in themselves, can be bulwarks against an overmighty state. Let’s not forget that it was the Catholic Church which helped to bring down the oppressive Soviet Union.   

9. We should study existing humanist institutions such as the American Ethical Union and the Society for Humanistic Judaism and learn from their mistakes and successes.

10. Humanist Conventions and World Humanist Congresses should be devoted to actually building humanism instead of offering what often amounts to humanist entertainment by celebrity speakers. Issuing sober declarations on “Great Fight” issues, such as the Reykjavik Declaration on Climate Change, are all well and good but they tend to be performative rather than laying down the basis for meaningful action. Humanist societies should actually study such documents and act on them.

11. An alternative ecosystem of humanist networks and journals should be nurtured and supported. The Humanism for the Common Good network and Humanistically Speaking magazine are very small-scale and precarious volunteer-led initiatives. Similar initiatives need to be started by humanists who are interested in new and disruptive ideas.

Let’s give the last line to John Lennon: “You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.”

End note

I asked Mike Flood for his comments on the first part of this article and he responded: “I recognise that we (humanists) can’t hope to tackle ALL of the threats that humanity/society is facing... But that’s not the point here: the main differences between misinformation, AI and climate change and the other threats that you list — with the exception of cybersecurity and mass migration triggered by climate change (which are both linked to these three issues) — is that misinfo, AI and CC are actually impacting us today and undermining liberal democracy, privacy and public trust, and raising concerns about (amongst other things) how one should be good and flourish in a permacrisis; and then there’s the very real concerns about the impact AI is having, and the associated question of what it means to be human...”

Further reading

Building a World Community: Humanism in the 21st Century, edited by Paul Kurtz in co-operation with Levi Fragell and Rob Tielman is a prescient book which was published in 1989 by Prometheus Books in Buffalo, New York. It included chapters on Science, Technology, and Ethics; and Ecology and Environment: Our Responsibility in the Twenty-First Century.