The Open and Relational Atheist
"I believe in the sacredness of relationships but not in God."
"I believe in the sacredness of relationships, but not in God." Thus says my friend Jennifer at the weekly online interfaith meeting. Our circle of friends includes Christians and Jews, Muslims and Hindus, Bahai’s and Buddhists, Unitarians and Pagans. And Jennifer.
She identifies herself as an open atheist; open to to the future, open to the world in its suffering and its beauty, open to values such as love and justice and peace, open to science, and open to being wrong about thingss.
What doesn't make sense to her is the idea of a personal God with will and purpose and self-consciousness, and the idea that only God is sacred or special, worthy of reverence. She knows that such a God may exist, but she is very doubtful. She believes that mutually enhacing relationships with people, other animals, and the Earth are sacred, God or no God.
Jennifer's atheism is not reducible to anti-theism. She exemplifies the spirit of what, below, I call Atheism 2.0. In fact, she has problems with atheists (1.0) who are filled with resentment and who define atheism primarily in terms of its opposition to theism. Here's how she puts it:
"Too many atheists wave the banner of atheism out of spite and resentment, out of a sense of arrogance because they have seen past what they call "The God Delusion." They turn science into scientism and fall into a kind of secular rigidity. Their atheism can be as dogmatic as that of many theists. I am not an atheist in this sense. My atheism is more about being pro-life than it is about being anti-theism. My heart is in the things of this world: the hills and rivers, trees and stars, plants and animals, and, of course, the people. For me value does not lie in a God whom, as the Bible says, we live and move and have our being. It lies in a universe in which we live and move and have our being.
She identifies herself as an open atheist; open to to the future, open to the world in its suffering and its beauty, open to values such as love and justice and peace, open to science, and open to being wrong about thingss.
What doesn't make sense to her is the idea of a personal God with will and purpose and self-consciousness, and the idea that only God is sacred or special, worthy of reverence. She knows that such a God may exist, but she is very doubtful. She believes that mutually enhacing relationships with people, other animals, and the Earth are sacred, God or no God.
Jennifer's atheism is not reducible to anti-theism. She exemplifies the spirit of what, below, I call Atheism 2.0. In fact, she has problems with atheists (1.0) who are filled with resentment and who define atheism primarily in terms of its opposition to theism. Here's how she puts it:
"Too many atheists wave the banner of atheism out of spite and resentment, out of a sense of arrogance because they have seen past what they call "The God Delusion." They turn science into scientism and fall into a kind of secular rigidity. Their atheism can be as dogmatic as that of many theists. I am not an atheist in this sense. My atheism is more about being pro-life than it is about being anti-theism. My heart is in the things of this world: the hills and rivers, trees and stars, plants and animals, and, of course, the people. For me value does not lie in a God whom, as the Bible says, we live and move and have our being. It lies in a universe in which we live and move and have our being.
Recently I discovered a phrase that names Jennifer's way of living in the world: ecohumanism. I heard lecture on ecofeminism by my friend Lynn De Jonghe of the Cobb Institute, and then a friend gave me a book using the phrase: Ecohumanism and the Ecological Culture: The Educational Legacy of Lewis Mumford and Ian McHarg. I think Jennifer is an eco-humanist atheist and perhaps also, as it were, an open and relational or "process" atheist. Let me explain.
An Open and Relational (Process) Atheist
This process philosopher, Andrew Davis, has written a book called Mind, Value, and Cosmos in which he proposes that there are many ultimate realities - all partly dependent on, and related to, one another -- and that in a way the most ultimate of them is relationality itself. I think Jennifer might like this last idea, albeit interpreted in her practical, existential way. She is an open and relational atheist.
I borrow the phrase “open and relational” from Thomas Oord and the Center for Open and Relational Theology. Like Oord, most people associated with the Center are deeply interested in a God who is open and relational: a God who has, to use the term of John Sanders, a nurturant character, interested in guidance and love but not domination. I am interested in this kind of God, too, and want to live my life centered in God’s love and guidance. I am not an atheist.
But Jennifer just doesn’t find this idea of God interesting, plausible, or important. She worries when people focus so much on God that they forget other very important things in life, maybe even the most important things: relationships.
To my mind, Jennifer is also a process atheist, because she attracted to the process understanding of the universe with its emphasis on mutual becoming and the intrinsic value of life, the primacy of feeling, the importance of the imagination, the wisdom of science, a sense of adventure, and the primacy of beauty. Indeed, she shares with process theologians and philosophers a commitment to compassionate communities and a different kind of civilization: an Ecological Civilization that emphasizes respect and care for the community of life, with special attention to the vulnerable.
*
As a process theologian myself, I like to speak of twenty key ideas in the process outlook on life. They include ideas like "we live in a universe of continuous creativity" and "all beings are present in one another in a web of interdpendence" and "something like subjectivity or experience goes all the way down into the depths of matter" and "persuasive power is more valuable, and more powerful, than coercive power."
One of the twenty – but only one – is belief in a God of love. As far as I can tell, Jennifer subscribes to all twenty except this one. She even subscribes to the one I call faith, understood as trust in the availability of fresh possibilities. She just thinks that fresh possibilities come from the universe itself, not from God.
As process theology develops in the 21st century, it can and should include, and learn from, the Jennifers of the world. I think of it as Atheism 2.0. Atheism 2.0 is not simply a rejection of a cosmic Mind, it’s an affirmation of other values: respect and care for the community of life, care for the vulnerable, the preservation of community, the fostering of creativity and love. I devote the rest of this page to Atheism 2.0.
- Jay McDaniel, December 2020
An Open and Relational (Process) Atheist
This process philosopher, Andrew Davis, has written a book called Mind, Value, and Cosmos in which he proposes that there are many ultimate realities - all partly dependent on, and related to, one another -- and that in a way the most ultimate of them is relationality itself. I think Jennifer might like this last idea, albeit interpreted in her practical, existential way. She is an open and relational atheist.
I borrow the phrase “open and relational” from Thomas Oord and the Center for Open and Relational Theology. Like Oord, most people associated with the Center are deeply interested in a God who is open and relational: a God who has, to use the term of John Sanders, a nurturant character, interested in guidance and love but not domination. I am interested in this kind of God, too, and want to live my life centered in God’s love and guidance. I am not an atheist.
But Jennifer just doesn’t find this idea of God interesting, plausible, or important. She worries when people focus so much on God that they forget other very important things in life, maybe even the most important things: relationships.
To my mind, Jennifer is also a process atheist, because she attracted to the process understanding of the universe with its emphasis on mutual becoming and the intrinsic value of life, the primacy of feeling, the importance of the imagination, the wisdom of science, a sense of adventure, and the primacy of beauty. Indeed, she shares with process theologians and philosophers a commitment to compassionate communities and a different kind of civilization: an Ecological Civilization that emphasizes respect and care for the community of life, with special attention to the vulnerable.
*
As a process theologian myself, I like to speak of twenty key ideas in the process outlook on life. They include ideas like "we live in a universe of continuous creativity" and "all beings are present in one another in a web of interdpendence" and "something like subjectivity or experience goes all the way down into the depths of matter" and "persuasive power is more valuable, and more powerful, than coercive power."
One of the twenty – but only one – is belief in a God of love. As far as I can tell, Jennifer subscribes to all twenty except this one. She even subscribes to the one I call faith, understood as trust in the availability of fresh possibilities. She just thinks that fresh possibilities come from the universe itself, not from God.
As process theology develops in the 21st century, it can and should include, and learn from, the Jennifers of the world. I think of it as Atheism 2.0. Atheism 2.0 is not simply a rejection of a cosmic Mind, it’s an affirmation of other values: respect and care for the community of life, care for the vulnerable, the preservation of community, the fostering of creativity and love. I devote the rest of this page to Atheism 2.0.
- Jay McDaniel, December 2020
Atheism 2.0
toward a kinder, gentler atheism
A friend sent me this TED talk the other day. It features a philosopher from England, Alain de Botton, who proposes that atheists need to get over stale debates concerning God's existence and learn from religion, all the while remaining atheists. He is speaking to people who don't believe in God but love Christmas carols.
I like the video very much. It makes a very strong case for Atheism 2.0. This is an open-minded atheism that moves beyond the five toxins of Atheism1.0. Here are the five toxins:
1. An irrational intolerance of all things religious.
This toxin is usually combined with a reduction of religious life to conventional morality, while neglecting the role of awe and wonder, beauty and felt connections, that are important to many religious people.
For many religious people is not primarily about morality, but rather about awe and wonder, community and finding a spiritual center for daily life. And when it comes to morality, many minded religious people are avowedly against conventional morality and avowedly in favor of counter-cultural moralities that reverse social hierarchies and cast their lot in with the poor and powerless of the world. See, for example, Diary of an Arrested Priest: GO.
2. An unwillingness to consider multiple ways of thinking about God.
This usually takes the form of defining "God" as a cosmic dictator while neglecting ways of thinking about God which are important to many religious people, and which focus on love, tenderness, interconnectedness, and solidarity with the poor and marginalized. Many advocates of Atheism 1.0 are unmindful of the way of thinking about God important to process theologians. See, for example, Rabbi Bradley Artson's God Almighty? No Way! Or the work of the Center for Open and Relational Theology.
3. A shallow empiricism that neglects multiple forms of intelligence.
This toxin takes the form of a shallow empiricism which, in the name of evidence-based reasoning, neglects the full range of human experience and the multiple forms of intelligence of which humans are capable: mathematical-logical, verbal-linguistic, musical-rhythmic, bodily-kinesthetic, naturalistic, interpersonal, intrapersonal, and existential.
In reducing "evidence" to what can be publically verified by means of the first two forms of intelligence, it neglects the fact that, for many people, the reality to which the word "God" refers is often found in other forms of intelligence: e.g. in empathic relations with other people and a sense of wonder.
For an illustration of a wider epistemology, see our column by John B. Cobb, Jr. called Five Foundations for a Ecological Civilization. Or Andrew Davis' work in a new, relational metaphysics: Mind, Value, and Cosmos.
4. An uncharitable heart that divides the world into wise people and stupid people.
This takes the form of resorting to clever turns of phrase in order to dismiss religious people without exploring matters more deeply. Cleverness becomes a way of shutting off further questioning.
An uncharitable heart is usually combined with a stereotyping mind, which lapses into irrational binaries of "right thinking people" and "wrong thinking people," failing to recognize that noone -- theists, nontheists, atheists -- have a monopoly on truth, and that there is something to learn from everybody.
5. A stale secularism that neglects the intrinsic beauty and value of all life.
Stale secularism is a secular outlook on life in which life is reduced to appearance, affluence, and marketable achievement, and in which the earth itself is reduced to a commodity for exchange in the marketplace. It is often accompanied by anthropocentrism. Anthropocentrism a way of looking at the world in which all living beings -- people and plants and animals -- are viewed as objects in a vast machine called nature. On this view there is no horizon according to which the goodness of creation is recognized; there is only the "value" that humans assign to things.
What are the alternatives to this kind of secularism?
One alternative is to conceive the universe as creative and organic, in the spirit of Whiteheadian or process thinkers, and to recognize that there is a trans-human horizon in whose consciousness all lives are appreciated on their own terms and for their own sakes. We might call this the theistic option to Atheism 1.0.
Another alternative is to follow Whitehead in recognizing that the universe is creative and filled with value, but to reject his idea that there is a trans-human horizon in whose consciousness all lives are appreciated. We might call this the non-theistic option or, alternatively, Whitehead without God.
Both perspectives offer a more organic vision of the universe; both invite a recognition that value is not reducible to humanly assigned value; both are plausible ways of looking at the world.
Atheism 2.0
Atheism 2.0 is akin to Whitehead without God. It is a healthy and mature atheism that moves past the irrational intolerance of all things religious, while at the same time remaining committed to its rejection of "supernatural realities" however defined.
Indeed, it has a generous heart. It rightly senses that there is something to learn from religion and that religious people cannot be reduced to shallow stereotypes.
It knows that the purpose of much religious language, even the language of a monarchical God, is to elicit these forms of rich forms knowing, and that the language need not be taken literally in order to be meaningful. It sings Christmas carols.
Make no mistake. Atheism 2.0 also knows the dark side of religion: (1) its occasional or persistent intolerance, (2) its occasional mean-spiritedness, (3) its tendency to divide the world into us versus them, (4) its defensiveness in the face of criticism, (5) its clinging to inherited habits of thought at the expense of being open to progressive thinking on a wide variety of imortant matters: homosexuality, animal rights, women's equality, diversity in thought and spirit.
And make no mistake, Atheism 2.0 rejects the existence of a dictatorial God who intervenes in history by interrupting the laws of physics and chemistry, and whose primary preoccupation is with reward and punishment.
But it is not fundamentalist in its mindset. Atheism 2.0 has a gentle and kindly spirit. It knows that noone, not even the atheists, have a monopoly of truth. It knows that there might be a compassionate arc of love -- a loving God - whose very spirit provides freedom and comfort to the likes of Martin Luther King, Jr and Mahatma Gandhi. It knows that atheists, too, see through a glass darkly.
Still, the exemplar of Atheism 2.0 must be honest. For him or her, belief in God lacks plausibility and stifles something very important: an affirmation of the meaning of this world, and this life, on its own terms, for its own sake, God or no God.
A Kinder, Gentler Atheism
Atheism 2.0 is a kinder, gentler atheism. It adds an important critique of the darker sides of religion and offers a plausible way of looking at the world.
For my part, I find panentheism more plausible than atheism. It has always made more sense to me to think that there's an ultimate consciousness in whose life all lives unfold, than to think the universe evolves in a vaccuum. I find myself praying to God at night and feeling that Someone is listening.
But I am as troubled as my atheist friends with the darker sides of religion. And I find myself enriched by people who see things differently from me and who challenge my own core assumptions. When Christmas comes, I'll be singing those carols, too, trustful that the people next to me -- even if atheistic -- might not see things as I see things, but whose voices makes the whole richer.
In its own way Atheism 2.0 is a religion, too. In its tolerance for diversity, it offers a beacon of hope.
I like the video very much. It makes a very strong case for Atheism 2.0. This is an open-minded atheism that moves beyond the five toxins of Atheism1.0. Here are the five toxins:
1. An irrational intolerance of all things religious.
This toxin is usually combined with a reduction of religious life to conventional morality, while neglecting the role of awe and wonder, beauty and felt connections, that are important to many religious people.
For many religious people is not primarily about morality, but rather about awe and wonder, community and finding a spiritual center for daily life. And when it comes to morality, many minded religious people are avowedly against conventional morality and avowedly in favor of counter-cultural moralities that reverse social hierarchies and cast their lot in with the poor and powerless of the world. See, for example, Diary of an Arrested Priest: GO.
2. An unwillingness to consider multiple ways of thinking about God.
This usually takes the form of defining "God" as a cosmic dictator while neglecting ways of thinking about God which are important to many religious people, and which focus on love, tenderness, interconnectedness, and solidarity with the poor and marginalized. Many advocates of Atheism 1.0 are unmindful of the way of thinking about God important to process theologians. See, for example, Rabbi Bradley Artson's God Almighty? No Way! Or the work of the Center for Open and Relational Theology.
3. A shallow empiricism that neglects multiple forms of intelligence.
This toxin takes the form of a shallow empiricism which, in the name of evidence-based reasoning, neglects the full range of human experience and the multiple forms of intelligence of which humans are capable: mathematical-logical, verbal-linguistic, musical-rhythmic, bodily-kinesthetic, naturalistic, interpersonal, intrapersonal, and existential.
In reducing "evidence" to what can be publically verified by means of the first two forms of intelligence, it neglects the fact that, for many people, the reality to which the word "God" refers is often found in other forms of intelligence: e.g. in empathic relations with other people and a sense of wonder.
For an illustration of a wider epistemology, see our column by John B. Cobb, Jr. called Five Foundations for a Ecological Civilization. Or Andrew Davis' work in a new, relational metaphysics: Mind, Value, and Cosmos.
4. An uncharitable heart that divides the world into wise people and stupid people.
This takes the form of resorting to clever turns of phrase in order to dismiss religious people without exploring matters more deeply. Cleverness becomes a way of shutting off further questioning.
An uncharitable heart is usually combined with a stereotyping mind, which lapses into irrational binaries of "right thinking people" and "wrong thinking people," failing to recognize that noone -- theists, nontheists, atheists -- have a monopoly on truth, and that there is something to learn from everybody.
5. A stale secularism that neglects the intrinsic beauty and value of all life.
Stale secularism is a secular outlook on life in which life is reduced to appearance, affluence, and marketable achievement, and in which the earth itself is reduced to a commodity for exchange in the marketplace. It is often accompanied by anthropocentrism. Anthropocentrism a way of looking at the world in which all living beings -- people and plants and animals -- are viewed as objects in a vast machine called nature. On this view there is no horizon according to which the goodness of creation is recognized; there is only the "value" that humans assign to things.
What are the alternatives to this kind of secularism?
One alternative is to conceive the universe as creative and organic, in the spirit of Whiteheadian or process thinkers, and to recognize that there is a trans-human horizon in whose consciousness all lives are appreciated on their own terms and for their own sakes. We might call this the theistic option to Atheism 1.0.
Another alternative is to follow Whitehead in recognizing that the universe is creative and filled with value, but to reject his idea that there is a trans-human horizon in whose consciousness all lives are appreciated. We might call this the non-theistic option or, alternatively, Whitehead without God.
Both perspectives offer a more organic vision of the universe; both invite a recognition that value is not reducible to humanly assigned value; both are plausible ways of looking at the world.
Atheism 2.0
Atheism 2.0 is akin to Whitehead without God. It is a healthy and mature atheism that moves past the irrational intolerance of all things religious, while at the same time remaining committed to its rejection of "supernatural realities" however defined.
Indeed, it has a generous heart. It rightly senses that there is something to learn from religion and that religious people cannot be reduced to shallow stereotypes.
It knows that the purpose of much religious language, even the language of a monarchical God, is to elicit these forms of rich forms knowing, and that the language need not be taken literally in order to be meaningful. It sings Christmas carols.
Make no mistake. Atheism 2.0 also knows the dark side of religion: (1) its occasional or persistent intolerance, (2) its occasional mean-spiritedness, (3) its tendency to divide the world into us versus them, (4) its defensiveness in the face of criticism, (5) its clinging to inherited habits of thought at the expense of being open to progressive thinking on a wide variety of imortant matters: homosexuality, animal rights, women's equality, diversity in thought and spirit.
And make no mistake, Atheism 2.0 rejects the existence of a dictatorial God who intervenes in history by interrupting the laws of physics and chemistry, and whose primary preoccupation is with reward and punishment.
But it is not fundamentalist in its mindset. Atheism 2.0 has a gentle and kindly spirit. It knows that noone, not even the atheists, have a monopoly of truth. It knows that there might be a compassionate arc of love -- a loving God - whose very spirit provides freedom and comfort to the likes of Martin Luther King, Jr and Mahatma Gandhi. It knows that atheists, too, see through a glass darkly.
Still, the exemplar of Atheism 2.0 must be honest. For him or her, belief in God lacks plausibility and stifles something very important: an affirmation of the meaning of this world, and this life, on its own terms, for its own sake, God or no God.
A Kinder, Gentler Atheism
Atheism 2.0 is a kinder, gentler atheism. It adds an important critique of the darker sides of religion and offers a plausible way of looking at the world.
For my part, I find panentheism more plausible than atheism. It has always made more sense to me to think that there's an ultimate consciousness in whose life all lives unfold, than to think the universe evolves in a vaccuum. I find myself praying to God at night and feeling that Someone is listening.
But I am as troubled as my atheist friends with the darker sides of religion. And I find myself enriched by people who see things differently from me and who challenge my own core assumptions. When Christmas comes, I'll be singing those carols, too, trustful that the people next to me -- even if atheistic -- might not see things as I see things, but whose voices makes the whole richer.
In its own way Atheism 2.0 is a religion, too. In its tolerance for diversity, it offers a beacon of hope.
Humanist Chaplaincy
(Humanist/Agnostic/Atheist)
|
The Humanist Chaplaincy at Harvard and MIT is dedicated to building an inclusive community of atheists, agnostics, and allies at Harvard, MIT, and beyond: we are creating a new model for how humanists celebrate life, promote reason and compassion, and better the world for all. We sponsor and advise humanist, secular and interfaith groups at Harvard and MIT. Humanism is a progressive life stance that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment, aspiring to humanity's greater good.
|
Good without God: What a Billion Non-Believers Do Believe
|
A provocative and positive response to Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and other New Atheists, Good Without God makes a bold claim for what nonbelievers do share and believe. Author Greg Epstein, the Humanist chaplain at Harvard, offers a world view for nonbelievers that dispenses with the hostility and intolerance of religion prevalent in national bestsellers like God is Not Great and The God Delusion. Epstein’s Good Without God provides a constructive, challenging response to these manifestos by getting to the heart of Humanism and its positive belief in tolerance, community, morality, and good without having to rely on the guidance of a higher being.
|
Varieties of Atheism
There are different kinds of atheism. The most popular kind is “ontological” atheism, a firm denial that there is any creator or manager of the universe. There is “ethical” atheism, a firm conviction that, even if there is a creator/manager of the world, he does not run things in accordance with the human moral agenda, rewarding the good and punishing the wicked. There is “existential” atheism, a nervy assertion that even if there is a God, he has no authority to be the boss of my life. There is “agnostic” atheism, a cautious denial that claims that God’s existence can be neither proved nor disproved; this type of atheist ends up with behavior no different from that of the ontological atheist. There is “ignostic” atheism, another cautious denial, which claims that the word “God” is so confusing that it is meaningless; this belief, again, translates into the same behavior as the ontological atheist. There is “pragmatic” atheism, which regards God as irrelevant to ethical and successful living, and which views all discussions about God as a waste of time."
Wine’s point is that most nonreligious people are atheists in one or another of these senses, even if they are pantheists or Reconstructionists or choose to call themselves agnostics or whatever else. But none of these terms has anything to do with what we do believe. We must not shy away from atheism as part of our identity—part we share with Spinoza, Dewey, Dawkins, Oprah, and millions more. But when God can mean anything we want it to, not believing in God is not a very important assertion. What is truly important is to assert, loudly and boldly, that we have a dramatically different way of understanding the world and human values. We are not simply atheists or agnostics or nonreligious—we are Humanists.
Epstein, Greg. Good Without God (p. 19). HarperCollins e-books. Kindle Edition. Quoting Sherwin Wine, A Life in Courage
Wine’s point is that most nonreligious people are atheists in one or another of these senses, even if they are pantheists or Reconstructionists or choose to call themselves agnostics or whatever else. But none of these terms has anything to do with what we do believe. We must not shy away from atheism as part of our identity—part we share with Spinoza, Dewey, Dawkins, Oprah, and millions more. But when God can mean anything we want it to, not believing in God is not a very important assertion. What is truly important is to assert, loudly and boldly, that we have a dramatically different way of understanding the world and human values. We are not simply atheists or agnostics or nonreligious—we are Humanists.
Epstein, Greg. Good Without God (p. 19). HarperCollins e-books. Kindle Edition. Quoting Sherwin Wine, A Life in Courage
Humanism and Its Aspirations: Humanist Manifesto III,
a Successor to the Humanist Manifesto of 1933
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.
The lifestance of Humanism—guided by reason, inspired by compassion, and informed by experience—encourages us to live life well and fully. It evolved through the ages and continues to develop through the efforts of thoughtful people who recognize that values and ideals, however carefully wrought, are subject to change as our knowledge and understandings advance.
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. It is in this sense that we affirm the following:
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.
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.
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. 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.
Life’s fulfillment emerges from individual participation in the service of humane ideals. We aim for our fullest possible development and animate our lives with a deep sense of purpose, finding wonder and awe in the joys and beauties of human existence, its challenges and tragedies, and even in the inevitability and finality of death. Humanists rely on the rich heritage of human culture and the lifestance of Humanism to provide comfort in times of want and encouragement in times of plenty.
Humans are social by nature and find meaning in relationships. Humanists long for and strive toward a world of mutual care and concern, free of cruelty and its consequences, where differences are resolved cooperatively without resorting to violence. The joining of individuality with interdependence enriches our lives, encourages us to enrich the lives of others, and inspires hope of attaining peace, justice, and opportunity for all.
Working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness. Progressive cultures have worked to free humanity from the brutalities of mere survival and to reduce suffering, improve society, and develop global community. We seek to minimize the inequities of circumstance and ability, and we support a just distribution of nature’s resources and the fruits of human effort so that as many as possible can enjoy a good life.
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 and maintain it is a civic duty to participate in the democratic process and a planetary duty to protect nature’s integrity, diversity, and beauty in a secure, sustainable manner.
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.
Humanist Manifesto is a trademark of the American Humanist Association
© 2003 American Humanist Association
The lifestance of Humanism—guided by reason, inspired by compassion, and informed by experience—encourages us to live life well and fully. It evolved through the ages and continues to develop through the efforts of thoughtful people who recognize that values and ideals, however carefully wrought, are subject to change as our knowledge and understandings advance.
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. It is in this sense that we affirm the following:
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.
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.
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. 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.
Life’s fulfillment emerges from individual participation in the service of humane ideals. We aim for our fullest possible development and animate our lives with a deep sense of purpose, finding wonder and awe in the joys and beauties of human existence, its challenges and tragedies, and even in the inevitability and finality of death. Humanists rely on the rich heritage of human culture and the lifestance of Humanism to provide comfort in times of want and encouragement in times of plenty.
Humans are social by nature and find meaning in relationships. Humanists long for and strive toward a world of mutual care and concern, free of cruelty and its consequences, where differences are resolved cooperatively without resorting to violence. The joining of individuality with interdependence enriches our lives, encourages us to enrich the lives of others, and inspires hope of attaining peace, justice, and opportunity for all.
Working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness. Progressive cultures have worked to free humanity from the brutalities of mere survival and to reduce suffering, improve society, and develop global community. We seek to minimize the inequities of circumstance and ability, and we support a just distribution of nature’s resources and the fruits of human effort so that as many as possible can enjoy a good life.
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 and maintain it is a civic duty to participate in the democratic process and a planetary duty to protect nature’s integrity, diversity, and beauty in a secure, sustainable manner.
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.
Humanist Manifesto is a trademark of the American Humanist Association
© 2003 American Humanist Association